1,11  5KAKY 

l>|         1111 

University  of  California. 

RECEIVED     BY    EXCHANGE 

Oass      W 


NOTES  ON  THE  SYNTAX  OF  THE  LATIN 
INSCRIPTIONS  FOUND  IN  SPAIN 


HENRY   MARTIN 


#  SDtemtation 


PRESENTED  TO    THE  BOARD  OF    UNIVERSITY    STUDIES  OF    THE  JOHNS    HOPKINS  UNIVERSITY 

IN  CONFORMITY  WITH  THE  REQUIREMENTS  FOR  THE  DEGREE  OF 

DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY 


BALTIMORE 

J.    H.    FURST    COMPANY 

1909 


NOTES  ON  THE  SYNTAX  OF  THE  LATIN 
INSCRIPTIONS  FOUND  IN  SPAIN 


HENRY   MARTIN 


&  SD&gtftation 


PRESENTED  TO    THE  BOARD  OF    UNIVERSITY    STUDIES  OF    THE  JOHNS    HOPKINS   UNI\  I 
IN   CONFORMITY    WITH    THE   REQUIREMENTS    FOR  THE    DEGREE  OF 
DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY 


BALTIMORE 

J.    H.    FURST    COMPANY 

1909 


; 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


Introduction 5_g 

Concord 7_21 

Adjectives,  7;  Pronouns,  8;  Verbs— Singular  for  Plural,  9; 
Plural  for  Singular,  9. 

The  Cases \ 12-27 

Nominative  Case — Nominative  in  Titles,  12;  Nominative  of  the 
Name,  12  :  Genitive  Case — Limiting  Genitive,  13  ;  Possessive 
Genitive,  13  ;  Partitive  Genitive,  13  ;  Genitive  of  Quality,  14  ; 
Genitive  with  Adjectives,  15;  Genitive  with  Verbs,  1G  : 
Dative  Case — Dative  with  Verbs,  16  ;  Mihi  nomen  est,  18  : 
Accusative  Case — Accusative  with  Verbs,  18 :  Ablative 
Case — Ablative  of  Quality,  19  ;  Modal  Ablative,  19  ;  Abla- 
tive used  Adverbially,  20  ;  Ablative  with  Adjectives  20  ; 
Ablative  with  Verbs,  21  ;  Expressions  of  Time,  22  ;  Local 
Relations,  24  ;  Ablative  Absolute,  26. 

Interchange  of  Cases 27-30 

Nominative  and  Genitive,  27  ;  Nominative  and  Accusative,  28; 
Genitive  and  Vocative,  28  ;  Genitive  and  Ablative,  29  ; 
Accusative  and  Ablative,  29. 

Pronouns 30-31 

Verbs 32-40 

Tenses — Present  for  Future  and  Vice  Versa,  32  ;  Future  Perfect, 
32 ;  Tenses  of  the  Infinitive,  33  :  Moods — Infinitive,  33  ; 
Indicative  in  Indirect  Questions,  34  ;  Subjunctive  for  the 
Imperative,  34  ;  Mood  after  Conjunctions,  35  :  Impersonal 
Verbs,  35  ;  Regimen  of  Verbs,  36  ;  Compound  Verbs,  38. 

Prepositions 40-46 

Adverbs 46-48 

Conclusion 48-49 


INTRODUCTION. 


The  subject  of  Latin  inscriptions  found  id  Spain  is  no1  an 
untried  field  of  research.     In  view  of  the  rather  complete  work 
upon  this  material  recently  published  by  Carnoy,1  a  brief  Btato  - 
ment  in  regard  to  the  purpose  of  this  pamphlel  will  be  relevant 
li   is  not  the  object,  at  least  the  primary  object,  of  this 
to  solve  any  of  the  great  problems  thai   have  so  long  i 
the  attention  of  students  of  language,  such  as  those  broached  b; 
Grober,  Sittl,  Mohl  and  others.     On  the  contrary,  it  is  con- 
fessedly syntactical,  undertaken  with  a  view  to  seeing  whal 
contribution  these  inscriptions  would  make  to  Latin  syntax  as 
it  is  at  present  worked  out,  what  details  a  study  of  them  could 
add  to  the  grammar  of  the  language,   and  further  what 
amples  of  rare  usage  could  be  added  to  those  found  in  works 
on  syntax  in  case  the  testimony  of  Spanish  inscriptions  should 
ever  come  to  be  embodied  in  such  a  treatise,  and  incidentally 
to  observe  what  light,  if  any,  could  be  thrown  on  the  relation 
between  the  Latin  of  these  documents  and  the  Spanish  language. 

The  difficulty  of  such  a  task  owing  to  scarcity  of  material  aud 
want  of  accurate  dating,  and  the  delicacy  and  care  in  inter- 
pretation required  by  this  matter  have  been  comprehensively 
stated  by  Carnoy  in  the  introduction  to  his  treatise ;  they  do  not 
need  reiteration  here.  Wherever  possible,  comparison  with  the 
results  obtained  by  Pirson  2  for  inscriptions  of  Gaul  has  been 
made  and  to  facilitate  such  a  comparison  a  selection  of  topics 
and  a  plan  of  arrangement  essentially  similar  to  his  have  been 
adopted;  for  this  no  apology  is  needed.  As  far  as  possible 
those  points  treated  by  Carnoy  have  been  omitted,  though  this 
material  was  for  the  most  pari  arranged  when  his  articles  ap- 

1  Le  latin  d'Eapagne  d'aprea   lea   inscriptions.     Bruxelles,   1906. 
'  La  langue  des  inscriptions  latines  de  la  Gaule.     Bruxelles,   1901. 

5 


6  Notes  on  the  Syntax  of  the 

peared.     In  a  few  cases  for  the  sake  of  symmetry  points  al- 
ready  noted  by  him  have  been  retained. 

The  materia]  deall  with  is  substantially  that  given  by  Carnoy, 
with  the  exception  thai  the  in-criptions  on  amphorae,  C.  I.  L., 
Vol.  XV,  were  do1  used,  and  with  the  addition  of  (ho  Ephemeris 
Epigraphica,  No.  '•>,  which  appeared  subsequent  to  the  publica- 
tion of  Carnoy'a  articles  in  the  I\iuseon.  The  works  most  fre- 
quently  cited  and  followed  are  those  on  Syntax  by  Kiihner, 
Draeger,  KTeue  and  Schmalz  and  the  work  of  Bonnet  on  the 
Latin  of  Gregory  of  Tours.  The  following  abbreviations  may 
require  explanation:  G-L.=Latin  Grammar,  ed.  Gildersleeve- 
Lodge,  L894;  I.  II.  C.=Inscriptiones  Hispaniae  Christianae, 
ed.  Eiibner.  The  inscriptions  cited  from  the  2d  volume  of 
the  Corpus  are   indicated  by  numbers  simply. 


Latin  Inscriptions  found  in  Spain. 


CONCOED. 


1.      Ah.ikitives. 

An  expression  made  up  of  a  noun  and  some  other  word 
joined  to  it  by  the  preposition  cum,  in  classical  Latin  is  com- 
monly treated  as  singular.  A  few  <-;i>rs  are  found  in  these 
inscriptions  where  such  a  word  group  is  regarded  as  singular 
judged  by  the  number  of  the  verb,  but  as  plural  when  modified 
by  an  adjective.  This  construction  is  both  natural  and 
sical.1.  I.  H.  C.  259,  Sanxit  cum  coniuge  .  .  .  duobusque 
natis  .  .  .  caventes.  Parallel  with  this,  however,  appears  a 
construction  occurring  not  so  frequently  in  Cicero,  but  found 
often  and  with  extended  application  in  writers  of  the  Augustan 
Age,  in  which  the  modifier  of  a  collective  noun  or  its  equivalenl 
is  written  in  the  plural,  even  though  the  verb  may  stand  in  the 
singular.2  2071,  Ordo  .  .  .  dedicatissimi  d.  d. ;  3730,  6004, 
Sodalicium  vernarum  Isidem  colon tes ;  I.  H.  C.  244,  Qui  in 
hac  aula  dei  ingreditur  .  .  .  deponant  ingredientes. 

Some  of  the  examples  of  irregularity  in  agreement  to  be  cited 
in  other  connections  show  violation  of  the  rules  of  gender  in 
addition  to  other  peculiarities.  At  this  point  may  be  recorded 
a  few  examples  in  which  the  departure  from  this  principle  seems 
to  be  the  primary  feature.  3509,  Valeria  .  .  .  se  vivo  fecit ; 
4248,  Statuam  .  .  .  positam  exornandum  .  .  .  censuer(unt) ; 
15S0,  Conditus  officio  Graeca  ser.  hie.  sita  est;  4r.li',  Propter 
insignia  bene  gesti  proconsulate  omnes;  T.  II.  0.  22b,  Era 
siscens  quattus;  I.  II.  C.  379b,  Cui  .  .  .  crustatam  stringal 
tortilis  ansa  latus. 

In  the  majority  of  the  cases  just  given  noun  and  adjec 

1Kiihncr,  Ausfiihrliche  Grammatik  der  lateinischen  Bpraehe.    1878,  2,  p. 

34,  par.  14.  2. 
2Kiihner,  1.  c,  2,  p.  16,  par.  9.2. 


s  Notes  on  the  Syntax  of  the 

are  separated  by  one  or  more  words,  yet  neglect  of  concord  may 
occur  even  where  they  are  to  immediate  contact  as  the  follow- 
ing will  show:  2295,  A.dsiduae  mater;  4310,  Incomparabili 
r<  ligionis  eius;  1.  E.  C.  335,  Eac  tumulo;  I.  II.  C.  215,  Pastor 
suique  obibus  .  .  .  repellil  mundi  delicia. 

II.     Peonotjws. 

A<  one  mighl  expect,  glaring  inconsistencies  in  the  agreement 
ilative  with  its  antecedent  appear.  Bonnet1  has  re- 
corded similar  constructions  found  in  the  Latin  of  Gregory  of 
Tours  and  is  probably  correct  in  explaining  one  phase  of  it,2 
a1  least,  as  due  to  the  similarity  in  sound  between  the  different 
is  of  the  relative  in  rapid  pronunciation.  In  the  ex- 
amples cited  below  it  will  be  seen  that  little  difference  is  made 
between  quern  and  quam,  and  even  between  qui  and  quae,3  so 
that  even  in  these  few  examples  there  seems  to  be  definitely 
foreshadowed  that  leveling  of  the  forms  of  the  relative  so  charac- 
teristic of  the  Romance  languages.4  For  a  similar  list  made 
up  from  inscriptions  of  Gaul  see  Pirson.5 — 2211,  Tesseram 
offerimus  .  .  .  quern  .  .  .  iubemus  suscipi;  5393,  Memoria 
.  .  .  quern  fecit;  I.  H.  C.  258,  En  quern  cernis  .  .  .  Tarasia 
Christo  dicata;  I.  H.  C.  403,  Saturina  qui  vixit;  I.  H.  C.  519, 
Eulalia  .  .  .  qui  passa  est. 

In  the  case  of  personal  pronouns  practically  no  irregularity 
occurs.  Worthy  of  mention,  however,  are  two  examples  in 
which  the  pronoun  fails  to  be  adapted  in  number  to  the  person 
referred  to,  but  occurring  as  it  does  in  a  formula  the  error  is  a 
mere  inadvertence.  1993,  Politice  an.  L,  Crysidae  an.  V, 
Pusinnicae  an  V,  h.  s.  s.,  s.  t.  t.  1. ;  also  5536,  see  p.  9. 


1  Le  latin  de  Gregoire  de  Tours,  p.  501. 

2 I.e.,  p.  499. 

'Camoy,  I.e.,  p.  269. 

'  Mcvcr-Liilikc  Grammaire  des  langues  romanes,  2,  pp.   143-144. 

■  1.  c,  pp.   158-159. 


Latin  Inscriptions  found  in  Spain.  9 

III.     Verbs. 

1.  Singular  for  Plural. 

(a)  With  compound  subject.—  In  classical  Latin  two  or  a 
subjects  in  the  singular  connected  by  et  or  other  co-ordiu 
conjunction  might  be  followed  by  a  verb  in  either  singular  or 
plural  number  according  as  they  were  regarded  as  acting  inde- 
pendently or  in  concert.1     In  these  inscriptions  the  construc- 
tion is  of  frequent  occurrence  and  with  such  a  subjed  the 
gular  is  so  uncommon  that  the  few  examples  of  il   .- 
recording.     5393,   Quern   fecit  pater  et  mater  el    L*  iica 

I.  H.  C.  230b  (p.  120),  Rudesindus  episcopus  et  Petrus  abbas 
me  iussit  fieri.     In  a  certain  number  of  inscriptions  real  i] 
ularity  is  caused  by  the  employment  of  formulas   in 
breviated  form,  so  that  the  proper  connection  between  them 
and  the  rest  of  the  sentence  was  lost.     In  these  cases,  no  doubt 
the  graver  applied  the  traditional  and  well-worn  formulas  with- 
out thinking  to  adapt  them  to  the  number  of  persons  mentioned. 
334-i,  Q.  Lucretius  Silvinus  .  .  .  et  Q.  Lucretius  Silvanus  pi 
in  suos  h.  s.  e. ;  365S,  L.  Fabius  Proculus  .  .  .  Vitoria  Omul- 
lina  .  .  .  h.  s.  e.  s. ;  5536,  M.  Sempronio  M..  1.  principi,  Sem- 
p(r)oniae  L.  1.  Secundae,  Luriae  C.  f.  Faustillae  .  .  .  h. 
s.  t.  t.  1. 

(b)  With  plural  subject. — It  is  possible  to  explain  most  of 
the  examples  under  this  caption  by  saying  that  the  subject, 
though  plural,  is  regarded  as  a  mass  or  entity  and  so  is  fol- 
lowed by  the  singular,  or  else  separated  from  the  verb  by  a 
phrase  and  in  this  way  the  thought  is  not  accurately  maintai 
5439  15n,  Quicumque  pontif  (ices)  quique  augures  .  .  .  lectus 
co-optatusve  erit ;  6278  47,  Ut  ea  pretia  .  .  .  pertineat;  I.  II.  < '. 
396,  Datum  est  .  .  .  in  auro  soledos  III. 

2.  Plural  for  Singular. 

In  Spanish  inscriptions  the  examples  of  two  nouns  conn© 
by  -ve  both  occur  in  one  inscription  and  both  are  followed  by 

lG-L.j  Latin  Grammar,  par.  285,  Rem.  1:   Kiilnu-r,  1.  c,  -.  par.  It.  1; 
Pirson,  1.  c,  p.  161. 


10  Notes  "it  the  Syntax  of  the 

plural  \rrl>.'  .">  !.".!>  '-'■'  -s,  Eamque  pecuniam  II  vir  prae- 
usve)  dandam  .  .  .  curanto;  5  1 39  -■-■"',  [tque  ...  II  vir 
aedil(i8)ve  dimoliendum  curanto.  Examples  of  irregularity, 
however,  are  Been  and  each  La  capable  of  individual  explana- 
tion. 62 7s  '-'.  Procurator  qui  provinciis  praesidebunt ;  prob- 
ably broughl  down  by  mistake  from  his  qui  .  .  .  praesidebunt 
v.  li;  6278  "'.  Lanistas  .  .  .  negem  sibi  copiam  .  .  .  prae- 
bendas  esse;  where  the  plural  may  be  taken  from  lanistasj 
I.  11.  C.  L57,  Ajcadius  vixit  annos  VI]  el  requieverunl  in  pace 
.  .  .  e1  fuerunl  Bervi  .  .  .  Vincenti,  etc.,  when'  the  plural  idea 
seems  to  be  suddenly  adopted.  One  of  the  most  interesting 
•  pies  here  is  the  following:  :).">70,  M.  Sempronius  Hymnus 
I  M.  Semproni  Eteburri  fili  sui  nomine  .  .  .  restituerunt. 
The  sentence  is  logically  correct,  since  the  author  had  two  per- 
Bona  in  mind.  In  reality  a  noun  combined  with  a  prepositional 
phrase,  a  modifier  of  the  verb,  is  regarded  as  plural.  Similar 
to  this  is  a  case  in  which  the  structure  of  the  sentence  was 
changed  after  the  verb  was  reached,  or  else  the  subject  was 
completely  lost.  I.  H.  C.  390,  Hie  requiescit  .  .  .  cui  decies 
.  .  .  (per)  metas  regendi  monacos  incubuere. 
It  has  already  been  mentioned  (p.  7)  that  a  subject  in  the 
singular  modified  by  a  cum  phrase  might  take  a  plural  verb, 
but  as  a  matter  of  fact  is  seldom  treated  as  plural  in  the  best 
writers.-  For  the  entire  body  of  Gallic  inscriptions,  even, 
Pirson3  has  recorded  but  a  single  example  of  the  plural  with 
such  a  subject.  In  Spanish  inscriptions,  too,  this  type  of 
subject  is  for  the  most  part  treated  as  singular.  The  following 
cases  of  plural  may  be  noted:  3298,  Fausta  cum  filio  .  .  .  hie 
sit.  sunt;  I.  H.  C.  334,  Ut  domus  haec  cum  habitatoribus  .  .  . 
florescant.  To  these  may  be  added  one  other  example,  in  which 
this  combination  is  qualified  by  a  word  in  the  plural  in  apposi- 
tion with  the  phrase  and  the  plural  verb  is   in  consequence 

1  Kiihner,  1.  c,  2,  par.  14.  1. 

2G-L.,  1.  c,  par.  2S5.  3,  Rem.  2;  Draeger,  Historische  Syntax  der  latein- 
ischen  Sprache,  1,  p.  lT.s,  par.  105. 
3  I.e.,  p.  163. 


Latin  Inscriptions  [omul  in  Spain.  1 1 

natural  and  normal.1     1.  II.  C.  t65,  Offerunl  famuli  dei  Ade- 
fonsus  .  .  .  cum  coniuge.        Especially    was    the   singular   in 
vogue  when  such  a  compound  subjecl   represented  a  difPen 
of   persons.2     The  one  example   in   Spanish   inscription 

variance  witli   this.     T.   II.    C.   283,    Ego   Sanccius  .  .  .  cum 
uxore  mea  .  .  .  iussimus. 

MviiliiuT.  1.  c,  -2.  p.  34.  -2  (end). 
-Kiihnor,  1.  c.  2,  p.  3 !.   par.    It.  2. 


12  Notes  on  the  Syntax  <>f  the 


THE  CASES. 


Nominative  (  'ase. 

Nominative  in  Titles: — The  Nominative  is  used  in  inscrip- 
tions of  various  kinds  that  imply  action  or  character.1  This  is 
in  reality  the  Nominative  of  the  title.  The  only  apparent  ex- 
ceptiona  to  iliis  principle  occur  when  monumentum,  dis  mani- 
bus,  or  sonic  other  word  or  phrase  thoroughly  familiar  is  for 
the  sake  of  brevity  omitted.  In  this  event  the  title  is  to  all 
appearances  in  the  Genitive  or  Dative  case.  This  is  common 
in  inscripl  ions  everywhere  and  no  examples  need  be  cited.  The 
titles  in  a  single  inscription,  however,  in  which  Nominative  and 
Genitive  seem  to  be  used  side  by  side  deserve  notice.  They  are 
given  without  comment,  since  Hubner's  note  on  the  inscription 
seems  complete.  The  titles  are  as  follows:  5181,  I.  Centesimae 
argentariae  stipulationes.  II.  Scripturae  praeconii.  III.  Balinei 
fruendi.  IV.  Sutrini.  V.  Tonstrini.  VI.  Tabernarum  ful- 
loniarum.  VII.  Scripturae  scaurariorum  et  testariorum.  VIII. 
Ludi  magistri.   IX.  Usurpationes  puteorum  sive  pittaciarium. 

Nominative  of  the  Name: — It  was  in  the  poets  of  late  Latin 
that  instead  of  an  oblique  case  we  find  the  Nominative  as  the 
case  which  simply  names  a  person  or  thing,  as  in  the  example 
"  Lazarus  hie  habuit  nomen  "  cited  by  Schmalz.2  Probably 
the  number  of  instances  of  this  type  for  the  entire  literature 
is  far  from  large.  In  view  of  this,  therefore,  the  one  example 
found  in  these  inscriptions  is  amply  worth  mentioning  and 
recording.     I.  H.  C.  12,  Venantia  nomen  .  .  .  gesi. 

1  Gildersleeve,  Syntax  of  Classical  Greek,  par.  5. 

2  Lateinische    Syntax.    Miiller's    TIandbuch    der   classischen   Altertumswis- 
senschaft,  II,  1900,  p.  227,  par.  43;  see  also  Draeger,  1.  c,  1,  390,  par.  172. 


Latin   Inscriptions  fun  ml  in  Spain.  13 

( ii  XITIVE  Cask. 

Limiting  Genitive : — The  sphere  of  the  Genitive  in  its 
simplest  form  is  considerably  widened  in  the  lai  t  in- 

scriptions, so  much  so  thai  it  often  appears  to  indicate  ignorance 
on  the  part  of  the  writer  of  the  idiomatic  Latin  turn  or  to  be 
his  method  of  expressing  an  idea  in  the  fewesl  possible  words 
without  reference  to  clearness.  The  result  may  be  a  heaping  of 
Genitives  and  a  good  example  is  the  following:  5260,  Valeria 
Avita  aram  tauriboli  sui  natalici  redditi  d.  <L,  where  Eiibnei 
explains  thus:  ara  posita  propter  taurobolium  deae  redditum 
die  natali  Avitae.  Under  this  head,  too,  may  be  placed  a 
strange  use  of  the  Genitive  with  the  words  tempus  and  vefustas 
in  which  the  latter  in  the  Genitive  is  employed  as  a  descriptive 
term  of  the  former,  which  then  virtually  becomes  redundant. 
4756,  Vias  et  pontes  tempore  vetustatis  conlapsos;  so  also  4826, 
4S53.     But  4788,  Temporis  vetustate  conlabsos. 

Possessive  Genitive: — The  Genitive  is  found  in  classical 
Latin  after  the  preposition  ad,  rarely  after  others,  the  word 
templum  being  omitted.1  The  only  examples  approaching  this 
in  Spanish  inscriptions  are  extremely  uncertain,  but  if  correct 
mark  an  advance  over  the  above  principle.  214fi,  Si  quis 
titulum  ad  mei  nominis  astiterit.  Here  Hiibner  thinks  me- 
moriam  is  the  omission,  Mommsen  regards  the  preposition  as 
simply  post-positive.  I.  H.  C.  472,  Episcopus  de  See  Marie 
feci. 

Partitive  Genitive: — There  may  be  noted  here  the  Genitive 
dependent  upon  neuter  adjectives  in  the  singular  or  plural  cm- 
ployed  as  nouns,  a  construction  sparingly  used  by  classical 
writers,  but  extended  by  Livy  and  later  authors.-  Not  many 
examples  occur  and  these  few  are  found  in  late  Christian  in- 
scriptions. I.  H.  C.  385,  Ut  numquam  sential  Beba  Gehennae; 
I.  H.  C.  218b,  Per  devia  mundi;  I.  H.  C.  218a,  Qui  temnena 
fluida  conscendit  lucida  caeli ;  I.  H.  C.  385,  Intima  qui  penetras 

1  Kiihner.   1.  c,  2,  p.    175.   6. 

'Draeger,  I.e.,  1,  p.  453.  4;  Schmalz,  I.e.,  p.  237.  G'2. 


1  I  Notes  on  tin'  Syntax  of  the 

cunctorum.     Such  expressions  as  saevissimus  saevomm  are  not 

real  Latin,  but  are  found  in  those  authors  who  are  most  in- 
fluenced  by  the  Greek.  The  type  selected  is  not  altogether 
Fortunate,  Bince  its  parallelism  with  the  following  is  not  exact. 
Eowever,  somewhal  like  this  arc  a  number  of  phrases  in  these 
inscriptions  with  the  difference  that  they  are  made  up  of  nouns 
rather  than  of  adjectives.  They  appear  only  in  Christian  in- 
scriptions, where  the  influence  of  the  Vulgate  is  manifest  and 
arc  without  doubt  Hebraisms  in  origin.  There  may  be,  how- 
ever, an  dement  of  the  popular  in  them.1  I.  H.  C.  49,  483, 
i!a  3aeculorum;  I.  H.  C.  218,  Presta  deus  deorum. 

Genitive  of  Quality: — While  used  at  all  periods  of  the  lan- 
guage to  express  quality,  the  Genitive  was  in  especial  favor 
in  popular  speech,  where  it  seems  to  have  been  used  somewhat 
to  the  exclusion  of  the  Ablative.2  Bonnet"  and  Pirson  4  have 
reached  this  conclusion  in  regard  to  the  Latin  of  Gregory  of 
Tours  and  of  Gallic  inscriptions  respectively.  The  fact  is 
noticeable  in  Spanish  inscriptions,  also,  where  it  is  used  to  such 
an  extent  that  the  Ablative  may  be  said  to  be  of  comparatively 
rare  occurrence.  The  following  list,  while  by  no  means  com- 
plete, is  intended  to  convey  some  idea  of  the  extent  and  sphere 
of  the  Genitive  of  Quality,  with  which  may  be  compared  a 
briefer  list  given  under  the  Ablative  of  Quality,  p.  19:  131, 
Deo  Endovellico  praesentissimi  ac  praestantissimi  numinis ; 
4061,  Theopompo  .  .  .  aedilici  iuris;  4146,  Uxori  rarissimi 
exempli;  2436,  Feminae  incomparabilis  pietatis;  4315,  Fac- 
tionis  Venetae  Fusco  sacravimus  aram;  1699,  Alumna  priscae 
pietatis;  I.  H.  C.  362,  Obiit  felicis  memoriae  Leander.  We 
may  further  consider  as  Genitive  of  Quality  a  number  of  con- 
structions with  the  Genitive  which  are  used  with  some  frequency 
and  which  may  be  grouped  as  follows: 

1.  Tribal  origin,  domicile,  etc.  1678,  Iuliae  G.  f.  .  .  . 
domus  Augustae;   365,   Valerius  Avit.  .  .  .  de  vico  Baedoro 

1  Schmalz,    1.    c,    237.    G2,    Rem.    3;    cf.    Petron.    37,    Habet    nummorura 
mimnios;    43,    Olim    oliorum    ( Friedlander's    note). 
5  Schmalz,  I.e.,  p.  23G,  par.  61.  "I.e.,  p.  548.  4  I.e.,  p.  175. 


Latin  Inscriptions  found  in  8pain.  I  - 

gentis  Pinton;  m".i,  L.   Domitius  T.  f.  (Jul.  Vetto  Otobesani; 
I.  E.G.  249,  Concessum  es1  sanoto  Salvatori  Ovetes 
This  is  especially  frequent  in  one  large  class  of  names  a 
foreign  in  origin  and  with  Genitive  pin  nil  in  -urn  Buch  as:  2708, 
Cassio  Corove8cum ;  3082,  Aplondus  Dagencium  M.  t'.1 

2.     ( lampaigns  one  has  served,  number  of  years  one  has  Lived, 
or  time  in  general.    L126,   D.   M.  S.    L   Valeri   nepotis  militis 
stipendiorum  VI 1    annorum    XXX;  43S3,    M.    Iuvcnto  ii 
mento  .  .  .  mensium  IX;  3564,  G.  Lol(i)us  Rufus  annorum 
XXXIV.     Probably  the  only  certain  example  of  the  A.bli 
iu  expressions  of  the  kind  is:  3471,  Herennia  mortua  esl  a< 
XV  an.     As  in  Gallic  inscriptions,  so  in  those  of  Spain,  the 
Genitive  could  be  employed  with  the  verbs  obire,  receden   and 
the  like,  and  finally  even  with  the  verb  vivere.     In  the  ca- 
all  of  these  the  Genitive  is  of  rather  unusual  occurrence.-     3.">i;i'>, 
Qui  obit(us  est)  annorum  XIV;  3297,   Marito  .  .  .  qui  vixit 
annorum  XXXX;  I.  II.  C.  13G,  Recesset  Tale  .  .  .  annorum 
XLII ;  I.  H.  C.  171,  Occurrit  Amator  etatis  sue  XLIII. 

It  is  plain  that  the  use  of  the  Genitive  discussed  in  both  the 
above  captions  marks  an  extension  beyond  classical  bounds  and, 
as  Pirson  3  suggests,  it  may  have  been  influenced  by  the  classical 
Genitive  of  Quality.  One  would  be  safe  in  assuming  further 
that  the  beginnings  of  the  Genitive  discussed  in  the  latter  were 
already  laid  in  Latin  of  the  Augustan  Age,  for  in  Varro  4  then 
in  Lfvy  and  others  is  found  maiores  triginia  annorum,  to  which 
Schmalz  5  traces  the  expressions  natus  decern  annorum,  rum 
esset  annorum  decern,  vixit  annorum  quattuor  of  Sulpicius 
Severus. 

Genitive  with  Adjectives: — In  addition  to  its  use  with 
tain  adjectives  that  regularly  require  the  Genitive  in  classical 
Latin  is  found  its  use  with  several  others  in  such  a  way  as  nol 
to  meet  the  requirements  of  standard  prose. 

Doctus. — 4313,  Tib.  CI.  Apollinaris  .  .  .  art  is  medicine  doc- 
tiss(imus). 

'Htibner,  Monuments   Linguae  rbericae,  ]>.  exxxvii. 
'-  Pirson,  I.e.,  p.  178.  3 1.  c.,  p.   177. 

i,  -j.  7.  l.  'I.e.,  p.  236.  61,  Rem.  t. 


16  Notes  on  the  Syntax  of  the 

lelis. —  Bere  is  usually  Bound  the  Dative  or  an  equivalent 
construction.  In  the  example  below,  fidelis  evidently  lias  the 
of  a  Qoun  and  the  Genitive  is  therefore  used.  I.  H.  C. 
1 1  7.  Maria  fidelis  Chr(  isi  )i  in  \  it  a  sua. 

Studius. — A  w«»nl  not  appearing  in  the  lexicons.  It  probably 
follow-  the  construction  of  adjectives  of  desire  and  in  this  case 
studiosus  would  naturally  be  thought  of  and  the  Genitive  would 
not  be  abnormal.1     6109  (Nee)  ip(s)i  stud(i)us  artis. 

Unctus. — The  normal  construction  after  this  participle  is  the 
Ablative,  cf.  I.  H.  C.  463,  Unctus  crismate.  But  a  strange  use 
of  the  Genitive  with  this  word  is  seen  in  a  single  inscription  of 
very  late  date.  One  would  think  of  a  change  of  declension,  but 
there  is  nothing  to  render  this  certain.2  I.  H.  C.  464,  Crismatis 
uncta. 

Genitive  with  Verbs: — The  Genitive  with  verbs  may  be  dis- 
missed with  brief  mention.  The  classical  construction  with 
liberare  is  Accusative  of  the  person  and  Ablative  of  the  thing. 
Livy,  however,  seems  to  be  the  first  to  employ  with  it  a  Geni- 
tive of  the  thing  as  in  the  phrase  voti  liberare;  so  also  culpae 
liberare.3  As  cited  in  the  example  below,  the  Genitive  is  prob- 
ably dependent  upon  the  preceding  noun  rather  than  upon  the 
verb  following,  but  even  in  that  case  it  seems  worthy  of  record- 
ing as  unusual.  1957,  L.  Porcio  .  .  .  qui  .  .  .  d(edit)  ut 
aes  alien (um)  rei  p(ublicae)   .  .  .  lib(eraret). 

Dative  Case. 

Dative  with  Verbs: — The  most  interesting  cases  of  the  Dative 
observed  in  these  inscriptions  are  connected  with  its  construc- 
tion with  verbs  and  hence  they  may  be  mentioned  first. 

Dimittere. — Noteworthy  is  the  Dative  with  dimittere,  as  seen 
in  I.  H.  C.  285,  286,  523,  Dimittat  ei  deus.  Here  the  com- 
plete expression  may  have  been  dimittat  ei  peccata  somewhat  as 
in  I.  H.  C.  31,  Quinigiae  in  hoc  loco  quiescentis  omnia  peccata 

1Kiihner,  I.e.,  2,  p.  319   (a).  s  Bonnet,  I.e.,  p.  364,  n.  8. 

"Livy  5.  28.  2;  Draeger,  1.  c.,  1,  p.  487;  Kuhner,  1.  c.,  2,  p.  338.  7. 


Latin   Inscriptions  found  in  Spain.  17 

dimitte.     In  the  examples  jusl  given  dimittere  appears  to  bav< 
both  the  meaning  and  construction  of  a  verb  of  pardoning. 

Precari. — A  verb  which  in  the  Literature  is  transitive  may 
by  a  slighl  difference  in  the  shade  of  meaning  become  intransi 
tive  and  as  such  take  the  Dative.  Such  a  verb  is  precari,  which 
in  one  inscription  Beems  to  have  taken  on  the  meaning  of  "  ••all 
oul  i","  "  pray  to"  and  in  this  sense  may  Legitimately  take  the 
Dative.  5186,  Si  sensus  er(it)  meae  quietia  qu(a)e  Lasso 
tibi  dulcius  precabor. 

5    dare. — The  Dative  with  sociare  occurs  firsl  in  Vergil.1      I. 
II.  C.  158,  Ce(ti)bus  s(an)c(t)orum  merito  sociatus  resurj 

Dative  with   Verbs  of  fighting'. — With  such  verbs  as  certare, 
;:<rc.  etc.,  the  Dative  is  poetical  and  on  this  ground  is  justi- 
fied in  one  inscription.2     4315,  Laudem  cursus  meruisti;  cer- 
tasti  mnltis. 

Dative  with.  Verbs  of  joining  and  the  like: — In  the  case  of 
a  certain  class  of  verbs,  chiefly  of  joining,  and  the  like,  either 
simple  or  compounded  with  cum,  the  besl  classical  usage  was 
cum  and  the  Ablative.  More  rarely  the  Dative  was  used.  With 
the  pasl  participle  of  these  verbs  the  condition  ig  described  by 
Draeger 3  as  one  of  wavering.  In  Spanish  inscriptions  they 
;ar  almost  exclusively  with  the  Dative,  showing  ilia!  they 
had  moved  away  from  the  classical  idiom  and  had  allied  them- 
selves with  later  usage/*  1399,  Omni-  u1  aetas  sanguine  me 
iunctam  crederel  esse  sibi;  I.  H.  C.  34a,  Quod  matris  tumulo 
iungeris;  I.  H.  C.  218b,  Amore  quo  tibi  coniunctus  mansil 
.  .  .  earns;  I.  H.  C.  255,  His  pariter  co(n)iunctae  sunt; 
I.  H.  C.  213,  Atletis  iungitur  rite  celestibus;  I.  II.  C. 
Ethereis  iungatur  sorte  beata  locatus.  To  these  may  be  added 
two  others  with  the  Dative,  connumerare,  which  is  no1  classical, 
and  coaequare,  which  is  seldom  used  in  thai  period.  I.  E.  C. 
L09,   Connumerandus   Sanctis    ministrabil    antistes^    1.    B 

1  Draeger,  I.e.,  1.  ]».  426. 

-ii or.,  Odea  1.  3.   13;   Draeger.  1.  c.,   1.  p.  406,  par.   184. 

3  I.e.,  1,  p.  425. 

lonnet,   1.  c,   pp.   5 11  fT. 


18  Notes  on  the  Syntax  of  the 

390,  Qui  cursum  .  .  .  peregil   .  .  .   Pauli   Antonique  meritis 
quandus  in  aethera. 
Unlive  with    Verbs  of  taking  away. — The   Dative  not  only 
g  with  such  verbs  as  eripere,  but  its  use  is  further  extended 
.cr;i!  verbs  not  ordinarily  so  construed  in  classical  Latin. 
Ii   ig  perfectly  regular  in  the  following:  3475,  Parentibus  eri- 
puil    fortuna  .  .  .  me;    Eph.    Ep.    8.    194,    Casus  me  eripuit 
matri  e  manibus;  I.  H.  C.  247,  Quisquis  auferre  presumpseril 
i.      Bui   aol   so  with  subducere,  private  and  possibly  de- 
re   as   in    th. >■•;■;•   below:  1425,   Huic  dono  .  .  .  heres 
non    deduxit;    L293,    Subductum    primae   Pyladem    haec    ara 
ttae  indicat;  I.  II.  C.  165,  Quern  sibi  non  sobu  .  . .  priva- 
bi1  trans(  itus  is)te. 

-  est'. — The  well-known  Latin  idiom  rniJii  nomen 
is  as  to  a  large  extent  disappeared  to  be  replaced  by  less 
complex  forms.  For  the  most  part  periphrases  are  resorted  to, 
especially  in  the  metrical  epitaphs,  or  else  a  direct  turn  like 
English  "  my  name  is,  etc.,"  is  employed.  1235,  ISTome  fuit 
nomen;  3501,  Huius  nomen  Salviol(ae)  fuerat;  1235,  Haesit 
nascenti  Cusuccia;  I.  H.  C.  12,  Nomen  Venantia  in  saeculo 
gesi. 

Accusative  Case. 

The  constructions  with  the  Accusative  case  were  less  com- 
pli<  ated  than  tho  e  with  the  other  oblique  cases,  were  easier  for 
the  masses  to  use  and  one  would  expect  them,  therefore,  to  be 
less  subject  to  radical  departure  from  best  usage.  Such  is  the 
case  in  these  inscriptions,  where  conservatism  in  the  use  of  the 
Accusative  is  displayed  and  little  out  of  the  ordinary  can  be 
recorded  in  its  treatment.  The  employment  of  a  direct  object 
with  certain  intransitive  verbs,  a  phenomenon  familiar  in  late 
Latin,  occurs  to  some  extent,  thereby  confirming  the  popular 
origin  of  these  inscriptions.  To  those  given  below  add  others 
cited  by  Carndy.1 

Blandiri. — I.  II.  C.  214,  Blandensque  corda  pleviu(m). 

Carere. — 4427,  Dulcem  carui  lucem. 

M.C.,  p.  271;  Bonnet,  I.e..  p.  533;  Pirson,  I.e.,  p.  170. 


Latin   Inscriptions  found  in  Spain.  19 

Contingere. — This  growing  disposition  to  oonveii  Intransitive 
into   transitive  verba   is   further  exemplified   by   the  verb  • 
tingere.     No1   a1   all  in  classical   Lai  in  and   rarely  al   a   later 
period  does  this  verb  take  an  Accusative  as  used  below.      I-">1  I. 
Quos  honor  .  .  .  conl  ig(  pit. 

Manere. — Although  it  has  the  intransitive  meaning  of  "re- 
main," yet  it  takes  the  Accusative  in  one  inscription  and  ap- 
pears to  be  construed  like  manere  in  the  phrases  mors  manet, 
exitus  manet.      L399,  Cum  me  mea  vita  maneret. 

Ablative  Cask. 

Ablative  of  Quality. — It  has  been  observed  under  the  head  of 
the  Genitive  that  this  case  tends  to  be  used  to  the  exclusion  of 
the  Ablative  where  the  quality  of  a  thine;  is  to  be  expre 
It  remains  only  to  cite  a  few  other  examples,  of  which  there 
are  not  many,  and  to  say  that  a  large  proportion  of  these,  if 
all  were  collected,  would  be  found  to  appear  in  the  Christian 
epitaphs,  which  are  often  mechanical  and  imitatory  in  charac- 
ter. 172,  Qui  .  .  .  hostili  animo  fuerint;  6087,  M.  Auivl. 
\\.  f.  Emona  patria;  I.  H,  C.  149,  Eafila  .  .  .  fide  probata; 
I.  H.  C.  455,  Ore  modestus  .  .  .  mente  quieta. 

Modal  Ablative: — The  one  example  to  be  considered  here  i- 
an  interesting  case  of  extension  due  to  analogy.  The  familiar 
classical  construction  with  the  adjective  inrilus  was  the  Ablative 
Absolute,  se  or  eo  invito.  It  is  never  found  with  the  Genitive 
of  a  pronoun,  as  invito  eius  below.  Forcellini  '  cites  one  ex- 
ample of  it  with  the  Genitive  of  a  noun,-  bu1  this  is  by  no  means 
a  parallel.  The  case  we  are  dealing  with  is  simply  an  extended 
use  of  invitus  by  analogy  to  the  phrases  iussu  eius,  monitu 
hortatv.  eius  and  others.3  5439  3-3-32,  Dum  ne  invito  ei 
exigatur  qui   .   .   .  erit. 

1  Totius  Latinitatia  Lexicon. 

*Ulpian,  Dig.  16.  3.  11.  Credidii  dominum  non  invitum  fore  huius  boIu- 
i  ionis. 
3  Draeger,  I.e.,  1,  p.  538. 


20  Notes  on  the  Syntax  of  the 

Ablative  used  adverbially'. — After  the  verbs  habere,  putare 
and  others,  active  and  passive,  instead  of  a  predicate  Aecusa- 
.  .1  construction  with  the  prepositions  in  and  pro  with  such 
words  as  locus,  mi mcms,  eie.,  followed  by  a  Genitive  could  be 
used  in  the  Literature.3  Further  the  Ablative  of  numerus  was 
frequently  employed  as  a  sorl  of  Ablative  of  Specification 
after  numerals  just  as  pondo  with  weights.  Something  like 
what  appears  to  be  a  cross  between  these  two  usages  occurs  here, 
where  iiiniicro  appears  not  with  a  numeral,  but  with  the  adjec- 
tive alius  and  would  seem  to  be  a  free  use  of  the  word  in  this 
connection  developed  out  of  its  use  with  numerals.  It  is,  there- 
fore, virtually  equivalent  to  an  adverb.2  I.  H.  C.  140,  Hie 
sunt  reliquiae  numero  sanctorum;  I.  Ii.  C.  140,  Et  aliorum 
uumero  sanctorum. 

Ablative  with  Adjectives: — The  Ablative  with  the  following 
adjectives  exhibits  peculiarities  worthy  of  note: 

Compos. — In  good  Latin  the  Ablative  with  compos  is  rarely 
found.3     5965,  Voto  sum  compos. 

Expers. — Its  use  with  the  Ablative  is  confined  chiefly  to  old 
Latin."1  172,  Me  .  .  .  expertem  patria  incolumitate  fortunis- 
que  omnibus  faxint. 

Plenus. — As  in  classical  Latin,  plenus  is  seen  both  with  Geni- 
tive and  Ablative  with  no  seeming  difference.  761,  Templum 
.  .  .  superis  et  Caesare  plenum;  3633,  Morumque  bonorum 
pleno;  I.  H.  C.  362,  Fide  plenos;  I.  H.  C.  219,  Plenisque 
dierum.  This  result  was  to  be  expected  with  an  adjective  like 
plenus;  the  real  reason,  then,  for  recording  this  at  all  is  its  pos- 
sible construction  in  one  example  where  it  appears  to  take  both 
itive  and  Ablative  and  that  in  the  same  phrase.  Momin- 
sen  (cf.  his  note  on  the  inscription)  thinks  some  such  word  as 
insignis  upon  which  the  Ablative  depended  has  not  been  pre- 
served in  the  reading.     Hiibner,  however,  claims  that  the  stone 

1  Draeger,  I.e.,  1,  p.  38.5   (d).  a  Cf.  Indices  I.H.O.,  p.  155,  col.  1. 

3  Kiihner,  I.e.,  2,  p.  284.  7;  Draeger,  I.e.,  1,  p.  476   (b). 

4  Kiihner,  I.e.,  2,  p.  325,  Rem.  6;  Draeger,  I.e.,  1,  p.  560  (f)  ;  Holtze, 
Syntaxia  priseorum  Scriptorum  Latinorum,  1,  p.  121. 


Latin  Inscriptions  found  in  Spain.  21 

has  been  preserve. I  Lntacl  and  thai  the  reading  a    we  have  Li  i- 
correct.     3738,   Pietate,  Lustitia,  fortitudine  el   pleno  omnium 

virt  in  inn. 

Purus. — Cited  with  the  AJblative  withoul  the  preposition  on! 

from  Eorace.1     An  example  can  be  added  IV these  ina 

tions.     I.  11.  C.  t56,  Nobilis  mnndoque  purus. 

Ablative  with  Verbs: — Certain  verbs  also  in  Spanish  in- 
scriptions are  followed  by  constructions  with  the  AJblative  do1 
altogether  norma]  and  may  be  conveniently  grouped  here. 

nglutinare. — After  this  verb  a  construction  with  cum  and 
the  AJblative  is  the  normal  one.     We  may  cite  one  example  of 
the  simple  Ablative  from  Spanish  inscriptions.     I.  II.  <  .  239, 
whitmans  se  norma  monastica. 

Esse. — A  strange  use  of   the   Ablative   is  its   apparent    i 
struction  with  esse,  as  if  it  were  a  verb  of  action,  ami   I: 
the  usage  must  be  construed  as  a  kind  of  Ablative  of  Mean 
Cause.      Eph.  Ep.  9.  170,  Hoc  fuit  procidentia  actoris  nt    .   .   . 
mitteres  illam. 

Per  ire. — After  perire  in  classical  Latin  might  be  used  a 
noun  in  the  Ablative  denoting  the  cause  or  circumstanc 
the  action.  For  example,  the  Ciceronian  phrase  fame  perire. 
In  Christian  inscriptions  this  verb  is  followed  by  a  noun  morti  . 
of  cognate  meaning,  which  at  first  sight  appears  redundant  and 
analogous  to  the  phrase  cited  above,  but  on  closer  examination 
reveals  the  influence  of  the  Vulgate  and  seems  to  convey  the 
paradoxical  idea  "he  did  not  perish  in  death."  I.  II.  C.  218, 
ISTec  morte  periit  sed  vibit  sede  perhenni. 

Uti. — In  a  Christian  epitaph  of  late  period,  \itor  is  followed 
by   the   relative  adverb   unde,   which   is    therefore,   equivi 
to  a  construction  with  the  preposition  de.     One  or  more  similar 
examples  may  be  cited  from  early   Latin.-'      I.   11.  ( '.  255,   1' 
pane  .  .  .  unde  in  cena  usus  est. 

Vendere. — Here  too  mav  be  mentioned   a   remarkable  con- 


1  Sat.  2.  ::.  213;  Draeger,  1.  <■..  ].  p.  560. 

2Ter.,  Adel.  981,  ef.    Parry's  note    (•">.  9.  24.).     Einc  dederia  .  .  .  und< 
atatur. 


22  Notes  on  the  Syntax  of  the 

struction  with  the  verb  vendere.  In  standard  prose  this  and 
.  .'  pluris  and  minoris,  Genitive  of  in- 
definite price,  [ndeed  with  regard  to  plus  no  Dative  nor  Abla- 
tive singular  La  ordinarily  given  by  grammarians.  The  ex- 
amples cited  in  works  of  syntax  show  few  or  no  cases  of  the 
Ablative  of  phis  with  a  verb  of  buying  or  selling.1  Several 
well-defined  cases  of  plure  [narking  price  occur,  all  in  one  in- 
scription of  between  the  years  L76-180  A.  D.  It  is  probably 
an  extension  by  analogy  to  the  words  magno,  plurimo,  parvo 
and  tin-  like  regarded  as  neuter  substantives,  so  that  finally  in 
popular  Latin  the  expressions  caro,  vili  emere  could  be  used.2 
6278  ';1.  Xe.pie  singulatim  aliquem  rei  gladitoriae  causa  vendat 
plure,  etc.;  occurs  again  1.  58. 

EXPEESSIONS  OF   TlME. 

By  reason  of  great  latitude  of  use,  expressions  of  time  merit 
distinctive  treatment.  In  Spanish  inscriptions  expressions  de- 
noting time  alternate  in  the  Genitive,  Accusative  and  Ablative 
cases.  As  has  already  been  shown,  the  Genitive  in  this  rela- 
tion appears  to  be  in  origin,  at  least,  the  Genitive  of  Quality, 
but  finally  comes  to  express  duration  of  time  with  verbs  side 
by  side  with  the  Accusative  and  Ablative.  The  fact  that  the 
Ablative  is  often  used  parallel  with  the  Accusative  and  even 
tends  to  supplant  it  in  giving  the  age  of  persons,  is  a  phe- 
nomenon common  to  all  inscriptions  and  need  not  be  dwelt  upon 
here.  It  ought  to  be  said,  however,  that  this  statement  applies 
principally  to  pagan  inscriptions.  In  Christian  inscriptions 
the  Accusative  tends  to  reassert  itself  to  such  an  extent  that  the 
following  almost  complete  list  with  the  Ablative  may  be  made 
out  for  them:  I.  H.  C.  71,  72,  73,  Vixit  annis ;  I.  H.  C.  158, 
Annis  sexa(ginta  p)eregi;  I.  H.  C.  330,  342,  367,  Vixit 
annis  XIX.     To  these  must  be  added  a  few  that  are  placed 

1  G.L.,  I.e.,  par.  90;  Kiihner,  I.e.,  2,  p.  335,  par.  5;  Draeger,  I.e.,  1, 
p.  464,  par.  201,  and  p.  567,  par.  247.  But  cf.  Neue,  Formenlehre  der 
lateinischen   Sprache,  2,   par.   71. 

•  Schmalz,  I.e.,  p.  249,  par.  87;  but  cf.  Carnoy,  I.e.,  p.  47. 


Latin  Inscriptions  found  in  Spain, 

Ii  is  ii"i  al  all  rare  to  find  the  Accusative  and  the  Abla- 
tive standing  side  by  Bide  in  the  same  expression  of  time,  thus 
confirming  their  practical  identity  to  express  duration  of  time.1 
5443,   Vixit  annis   XXXV,   mens.   V,  dies    XXVIII;   5144, 

Yixii.   annis    LII,    mens    I,    dies    \'  ;    l.ll.C.    L39,    In    annibus 

viginti    duos;   I.  IT.  C.   215,   Quattuor   denis   el    duo   annos; 
1. 11.  C.  275,  Duo  et  tribus  mesibus. 

In  giving  dates  the  classical  construction  ".  '/.  /,"/.  Inn.  or 
mas  Ian.  appears  us  follows: 

1.  Ante  diem  is  entirely  omitted  while  the  adjective  form 
Jcalendas,  etc.,  is  still  retained  in  the  Accusative  case,  a  method 
common  enough  in  classical  Latin  and  i-  here  imply  for 

ncss.  I.  H.  C.  3,  Requievit  in  pace  ...  XI  kal.  No 
vonibres. 

2.  The  forms  die,  sub  die,  take  the  (dace  of  n.  ,1..  etc.,  and 
what  follows  is  still  put  in  the  Accusative  case.     This  i- 
frequently    used.     In   raiv    instances   the   Genitive    is    found.2 
I.  H.  C.  46,  Rceepta  in  pace  die  IV  idus  lanuarias;  I.   !' 

Die  II  idus  Martias  die  1 1  nonas  April     ;    I.  . 
Sub    die    sexto    id(us)    Novembri(s).     Prepositions    are    but 
sparingly    used.     I.  H.  C.  147,  Iustus  ...  in  aera,  etc.;  ao 
I.  II.  C.  252,  253,  254;  I.  H.  C.  220,  Septem  de  kalendis  .  .  . 
Aprilis;  I.  II.  C.  267,  In  ns  Fbrii ;  I.  H.  C.  95,  In  novissi 
die;  I.  H.  C.  472,  In  S(a)n(c)ti  Micaeli(s)  die. 

Here  may  be  called  attention  to  peculiarities  noted  in  a 
individual  inscriptions.     In  the  expression  I.  II.  ( '.  143,  Anno 
sexcentum    decies    era    nonagesima    uovem,    sexcentum    d 
seems  to  be  a  bold  substitution  for  sexies  centum.    Di<  and  oridie 
are  found  side  by  side  in  one  inscription  and  the  whole  i  spres- 
sion  seems  to  be  the  simple  equivalenl  of  a.  d.      I.  EI.  ' '.  316, 
Requievit  in  pace  .  .  .  die  pridie  kal.  Februarias.     'The  omis- 
sion of  any  word  to  indicate   time  leaving  an   attribute  with 
which  it  is  to  be  supplied  is  noteworthy  in  one  example. 
Vivas  pluribus   (i.  c.    annis).     Hero,   too,   may   be   noted   the 

1Pirson,  I.e.,  p.  183;  Carnoy,  I.e.,  p.  268. 
2  Carnoy.  I.e..  p.  271. 


2  1  Notes  on  the  Syntax  of  the 

turn  for  expressing  the  age  of  a  person,  which  is  rather  unusual 
for  Latin;  only  one  example  is  found  in  these  inscriptions: 
I,  Cui  .  .  .  an(nos)  hahen(ti)  XXV.  This  is  interesting 
because  of  the  similarity  of  the  Romance  idiom:  French,  j'ai 
.  .  .  ans;  Spanish,  tengo  .  .  .  aims.  We  may  add  to  this 
several  examples  in  Gallic  inscriptions  and  one  in  Petronius.1 

Local  Relations. 

Hero  again  separate  consideration  is  desirable.  Place  where 
is  expressed  both  with  and  without  the  preposition  in.  In 
pagan  inscriptions  the  tendency  is  to  adhere  to  the  classical  con- 
si  ruction  and  insert  the  preposition.  Sufficient  examples  with- 
out in,  however,  occur  to  show  that  the  practice  of  omitting  it 
was  well  established  among  the  people.  In  most  cases,  on  the 
other  hand,  the  noun  is  qualified  by  an  attribute  and  the  irreg- 
ularity, if  it  may  be  so  called,  is  thereby  diminished.2  4314, 
Hoc  .  .  .  requiescunt  ossa  sepulchro;  2335,  Iuvenis  tumulo 
qualis  iacet;  3180,  Qui  militavit  cohorte  X;  3453,  ISTunc  iacis 
hoc  tumulo.  On  the  other  hand  the  tendency  to  obliterate  dis- 
tinctions is  shown  by  the  use  of  the  preposition  with  locus,  which 
is  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  classical  Latin.3  The  preposition  is 
used  also  when  locus  is  qualified  by  an  adjective.  1062,  I(n) 
loco  quern,  etc. ;  1064,  1066,  In  locum  quern,  etc. ;  3354,  Iacet 
.  .  .  in  locum  Campaniensem ;  3015,  Con(c)uiescen(t)es  in 
locum.  The  preposition  is  omitted  with  the  phrase  suo  solo, 
which  is,  therefore,  treated  as  the  classical  locus.'1  1956,  Posti- 
cus ad  balineum  .  .  .  solo  suo  .  .  .  d.  d. ;  1074,  Portions  lapi- 
deas  .  .  .  solo  suo  .  .  .  d. ;  1459,  Q.  Memmius  .  .  .  statuas 
duas  .  .  .  solo  suo  fecit.  The  same  impossibility  to  generalize 
is  met  with  in  Christian  inscriptions,  nor  is  it  possible  to  draw 
any  definite  line  of  distinction.  The  jireference  seems  to  tend 
toward  the  omission  of  the  preposition,  but  too  many  cases  of 

1  C.  I.  L.  XII,  2141,  527G,  Habere  annos;  Petron.  25,  Puella  quae  non  plus 
quam  septem  annos  habere  videbatur. 
2Pirson,  I.e.,  p.  191.  3  G.L.,  I.e.,  p.  247,  n.  1. 

4  Draeger,  I.e.,  1,  p.  525. 


\ 

Latin  Inscriptions  found  in  Spain.  2b 

its  use  even  with  locus  occur  to  make  tin-  statement  strictly  ac 
curate.     L  H.  C.  31,  In  hoc  loco  quiescentis ;  I.  II.*'.   t83,  In 
locu(m)   hiinr  s(anct)um;    I.    II.  ( '.    L15.     (I)n  locum    \:u 
vola;  I.  11.  C.  376,  In  fundum;  I.  II.  C.   171.  In  oe  I  im 
I.   II.  0.  33,   In  hoc  saeculo  .  .  .  transegit;   I.   II.  C.   '>7,   In 
line  altario;   I.   II.  C.  60,   In  hoc  fcumulo  iacet;   I.   II.  < '. 
mi  isto  loco  sepultus  est;  1.   II.  ( (.  86,  Celesti  regnal   in  aula. 
But:  I.  II.  C.  533,  Sepulta  es1  tumulo;  I.  it.  ( '.   L2,  Eoc 
.  .  .  elegi  quiescere  proles. 

In   more  than  one   case    the    preposition    is    used    with   im- 
proper name  of  a  city,  for  the  most  part  a  late  Latin  usage,  but 
perhaps  always  more  or  less  common  in  popular  spoor!;.1 
In    Helviano  .  .  .pos(i)tae    sunt;    I.    H.    C.    488,    Regnante. 
...  in  Legione.     In  late  Christian  inscriptions  the  preposi- 
tion ab  may  be  used  with  the  proper  name  of  a  city  when 
motion  from  it  is  expressed,  also  a  vulgar  Latin  turn.2      I.  II.  ( '. 
275,  Venit  a  Corduva.     The  preposition  a  or  ab  is  usually  in- 
serted, as  it  is  in  classical  Latin,  with  the  name  of  a  city,  when 
it  is  the  point  from  which  distance  is  measured.     The  viola- 
tion of  this  principle,,  however,  is  found  in  several  cases,  and 
in  most  of  them  the  name  of  the  city  begins  with  the  vowel  <'. 
so  that  the  omission  might  be  a  graver's  error.     4697,  Ahiano 
ad  oceanum;  4779,  Aquis  Mavis  m.  p.,  etc.;  so  4780,    IT 
4782,  4783;  4872,  4870,  Bracar  Aug(usta)   m.  p.   XIX:  cf. 
4803,  a  Bracar  Aug(uSta)  ;  so  4S04,  4805,  4806.     Verbs  indi- 
cating motion  to  a  place  are  for  the  most  part  followed  by  the 
Accusative  with  the  preposition  ad  in  regular  fashion.     <  I 
sionally  such  a  verb  is  construed  with  in  and  the  Ablativi 
that  rest  in  a  place  is  really  the  idea  conveyed,  though  motion 
to  a  place  is  meant ;  even  the  Dative  is  found.3     It  will  be  i 
that  these  examples  are  found  in  very  late  inscriptions,  in  which 
the  difference  between  the  cases  is  reduced    to   a   minimi] 
I. .II.  C.  244,  Qui  in  hac  aula  .  .  .  ingreditur;  cf.  3871,   In- 
gressum  militiam. 

1  Sclimalz.  I.e.,  p.  25").  par.  94   (end). 

2G.-L.,  I.e.,  par.  391,  Rem.  1;  Schmalz,  I.e.,  p.  254,  par.  93. 

3  Cavnoy,  I.e.,  p.  270.  '  Pirson,  I.e.,  p.  2 


26  Notes  mi  the  Syntax  of  the 

Ii  remains  to  notice  ;i  Few  substitutions.     Pirson  l  has  shown 

thai  the  adjective  urbicus,  in  Gallic  inscriptions  has  come  to  be 

quivalenl  of  Romanus.     In  Spanish  inscriptions  the  word 

jed  more  freely  still  and  is  substituted  for  the  prepositional 

phrase  ad  urbem  Eomam  or  Bimply  Eomam.  The  reading  seems 

certain  enough  to  justify  this  interpretation.     379,  M.  Iul(io) 

Serano  in  itinere  ur(bico)  def uncto  et  sepulto.     Instill  another 

the  A.ccusative  of  the  name  of  a  city  is  used  instead  of  the 

Locative,  or  apud  with  the  Accusative.     4227,  Decuriali  allecto 

[talicam. 

A  ulative  Absolute. 

This  construction,  always  a  favorite  in  Latin,  is  very  fre- 
quently u<i'd  in  Spanish  inscriptions.  In  classical  Latin,  al- 
though  it  might  express  a  variety  of  ideas,  it  was  hedged  about 
by  definite  restrictions  and  this  very  fact  would  expose  it  to 
variations  and  incorrectness  of  usage  in  the  mouths  of  the  igno- 
rant. In  the  Latin  of  Gregory  of  Tours,  for  example,  the  Nomi- 
native, Accusative  and  Ablative  are  all  used  in  this  construction 
with  practical  identity  of  meaning.2  In  these  inscriptions 
abundant  signs  of  the  disintegration  of  the  Ablative  Absolute 
appear.  Of  these  one  of  the  most  noticeable  is  its  replace- 
ment by  the  Nominative  Absolute  in  late  inscriptions. 
! .  EL  C.  275,  Peracta  sunt  .  .  .  Ordinius  peragens  sceptra ; 
I.  II.  C.  -±09,  Peracta  sunt  .  .  .  Garsea  sceptra  .  .  .  pera- 
gens. The  best  examples  are  those  in  which  the  Nominative 
and  A  Illative  are  used  in  the  same  sentence,  thus  furnishing 
additional  evidence,  were  it  needed,  that  the  two  construc- 
tions were  parallel  at  this  late  period.1''  I.  H.  C.  472,  Ke(ge) 
Adefonso  Suero  Alvarie  abas;  3240,  Factis  pontibus  et  flstulis 
et  lacus.  A  good  example  of  the  misconception  of  the  Ablative 
Absolute  and  its  consequent  weakening,  and  at  the  same  time  one 
-  back  farthest  is  the  expression  se  vivo,  a,  is,  and  the 

1 1.  c,  p.  267.  =  Bonnet.  1.  c,   pp.  55S  ff. 

3  Carnov.  1.  c,  p.  267. 


Latin  Inscriptions  found  in  Spain.  27 

like,  which  seems  to  be  common  to  all  inscriptions.1  In  a  few 
phrases  and  only  a  few  is  it  correctly  used.  3459,  Viva  sibi 
fecit.  It  is  possible  that  such  examples  contain  the  point  of  de- 
parture. The  next  step  may  then  have  been  something  like 
this:  4050,  Se  vivi  fecerunt,  the  strict  meaning  of  se  having 
faded  out.  Finally  the  still  more  impossible  Ablative  Absolute 
makes  its  appearance.  2973,  Atilia  .  .  .  se  viva  fecit;  3049, 
Pompeia  .  .  .  se  viva  sibi  .  .  .  fecit;  3489,  Numisia  .  .  .  se 
viva  fecit;  266,  Flavius  se  vivo  monumentum  fecit;  3960, 
Rufus  coniunx  se  vivis  compararunt;  Eph.  Ep.  8.  30,  Me  vivo 
f.  c. ;  507,,  Ipsa  sibi  se  viva  .  .  .  f.  c.  The  climax  of  incor- 
rectness is  seen  in  a  type  like  the  following.  3509,  Valeria  .  .  . 
se  vivo  fecit;  5721,  (T)uravo  .  .  .  filio  vivi  fecit. 

Interchange  of  Cases. 

One  of  the  most  striking  features  of  the  language  of  inscrip- 
tions, as  indeed  of  late  Latin  in  general,  is  the  extent  to  which 
confusion  in  cases  appears  and  the  ease  with  which  one  case  is 
substituted  for  another.  Bonnet  2  and  Pirson  3  have  not  only 
discussed  this  point  as  it  appears  in  the  respective  spheres  with 
which  they  are  dealing,  but  have  also  assigned  sufficiently 
plausible  reasons  for  it,  the  most  potent  of  which  are  similarity 
in  sound  of  the  various  endings  in  rapid  pronunciation  and  the 
fall  of  m  and  s  of  the  Accusative  endings.  In  many  cases, 
however,  minor  reasons  may  be  offered  sufficient  to  account  for 
the  substitution.4 

Nominative  and  Genitive : — The  peculiarities  here  may  be 
traced  to  habits  of  thought  under  the  influence  of  which  the 
attention  of  the  author  was  diverted  from  the  strict  syntactical 
connection  of  words.  Eor  example,  the  names  of  persons,  even 
though  in  apposition  with  a  word  in  some  other  case,  were 
likely  to  be  felt  as  titles  and  written  in  the  Nominative.  632Sb, 
Manus  Aureli  Pacatiani  films  possessor;  I.  H.  C.  166,  Hie  sunt 


1  Pirson,  I.e.,  p.  1S5;  Carnoy,  I.e.,  p.  268. 

-  I.e.,  p.  522.  3].e.,  p.   187.  4  Carnoy,  I.e..  p.  267. 


28  Notes  on  the  Syntax  of  the 

sepulcra  Banctorum  .  .  .  Nigrinus  episc.  Sefronius  episc.; 
I.II.C  228,  Sic  req(ui)esci1  corp(us)  f(a)m(u)lorum  dei 
A.goblasto  i  ?)  A-beataresus.  Other  examples,  on  the  contrary, 
seem  to  offer  peculiarities  for  which  no  explanation  and  cer- 
tainly i!"  justification  is  at  hand.  I.II.C.  259,  In  nomine 
diii  .  .  .  sive  omnium  eius  sanctorum  (  ?)  .  .  .  Mariae  Virgi- 
nia bissenisque  apostolis;  I.  II. C  519,  Requiescit  .  .  .  Eulalia 
mar(ty)ris.  The  influence  of  a  contiguous  word  is  seen  in  the 
following:  5304,  Luni  Tapili  f.  .  .  .  statuit;  L  H.  C.  276,  Eic 
noa  ea  f(a)m(ul)a  dei   Eldonciae  fundatum  est. 

Nominative  and  Accusative: — By  far  the  most  interesting 
examples  of  this  type  are  those  in  which  the  Accusative  takes 
the  place  of  a  Predicate  Nominative  or  even  of  the  subject. 
The  examples  are  very  late  bu1  are  interesting  as  showing  the 
inclination  for  ihe  Accusative  as  well  as  the  extent  to  which 
i  he  cases  were  leveled.  I.  H.  C.  494,  Sit  illi  div(us)  adiutorem 
et  protectorem;  I.II.C.  135,  Perfectum  est  templum  hunc; 
I.  H.  C.  390,  Datum  est  .  .  .  soledos  III;  I.  H.  C.  474,  Aulam 
.  .  .  fuit  luteam.  In  the  example  6180,  Limenius,  Euplium, 
Patinicus,  Calimorfus,  Torax,  etc.  (cf.  Hiibner's  note  on  the 
inscription),  Euplium  may  be  the  pet  name  of  a  horse  and  so 
put  in  the  neuter.  Here  may  be  put  the  use  of  the  Accusative 
for  the  Nominative  in  the  construction  "  Attractio  Inversa  " ; 
the  examples  seem  worthy  of  recording.1  4125,  Sententiam 
quam  tulit  L.  Novius  Rufus;  I.  H.  C.  474,  Hanc  quam  cemis 
an  lain  .   .   .  fuit  luteam. 

Gen!/! re  and  Vocative: — The  Genitive  is  written  for  the 
Vocative  in  one  inscription  by  a  misunderstanding  of  its  form. 
The  sentence  was  begun  in  the  form  of  direct  address,  which  was 
kept  up  until  the  word  corpus  was  reached,  where  under  the 
influence  of  numerous  inscriptions  of  a  different  type,  the  direct 
form  of  the  proposition  was  dropped  and  the  Genitive  abbatis 
instead  of  the  Vocative  abbas,  was  attached  as  a  limiting  word 

^chmalz,  I.e.,  p.  21G.  par.  12:  O.-L..  I.e.,  par.  017.  2. 


Latin  Inscriptions  found  in   Spain.  29 

to    corpus.      I.  H.  0.    142,    Haec   tenet    (u)rna    tu(u)m  .  .  . 
corpus  Vmcenti  abb  (at)  is. 

Genitive  and  Ablative: — Rather  remarkable  is  the  substitu- 
tion in  a  single  inscription  of  the  Genitive  for  the  Ablative, 
which  is  more  remarkable  since  it  occurs  in  a  well-understood 
formula.  145'.),  Statuas  duas  .  .  .  imam  nominis  sui  alteram 
patris  poni  iussit.  The  most  plausible  explanation  here  is  that 
the  writer  instead  of  following  the  usual  phraseology  suo  .  .  . 
et  nomine  patris  has  regarded  the  expression  nominis  sui  as  a 
sort  of  substitution  for  a  proper  noun,  and  is  dealing  with  it 
just  as  with  the  phrase  statuam  Minervae.  In  the  following 
epitaph  the  Genitive,  though  properly  a  limiting  Genitive,  may 
be  said  to  be  a  weak  substitute  for  the  classical  Ablative  of 
Origin:  I.  H.  C.  2,  Sinticio  .  .  .  traens  linea(m)  Getarum 
(=  ducens  originem  ab  Getis.     Hiibner's  note). 

Accusative  and  Ablative: — The  Accusative  and  Ablative  are 
easily  confused  with  one  another  owing  to  loss  of  final  m  of  the 
former.  This  confusion  occurs  most  readily  after  prepositions, 
as  Carnoy's  list *  shows.  The  employing  of  the  Accusative  for 
the  Ablative  is  especially  noteworthy  in  an  inscription  where  it 
clearly  takes  the  place  of  the  Ablative  of  Origin  or  Quality. 
I.  H.  C.  372,  Aurelius  .  .  .  nationem  Afram  qui  vixit,  etc. 

As  an  appendage  here  may  be  put  numerous  examples  of  a 
type  that  does  not  prove  disintegration,  nor  throw  light  on 
syntax,  but  that  involves  irregularities  which  arise  simply  from 
confusion  in  the  mind  of  the  graver  as  to  the  form  of  the  in- 
scription with  which  he  was  dealing;  so  that  the  proper  noun 
at  the  head  of  the  inscription  may  be  in  one  case  and  a  word 
in  apposition  further  down  in  quite  another.  With  these  may 
be  compared  Pirson's  long  list  and  discussion  of  same.2  1099, 
Maria  Q.  f.  Nymphe  M.  Aureli  uxori ;  1262,  M.  Acenna  .  .  . 
qnaestori  .  .  .  Illviro ;  2051,  Imp.  Caesari  divi  !N"ervae  f.  divo 
Traiano  optimo  .  .  .  pater  patriae;  2126,  C.  Cornelius  C.  f. 
.  .  .  rlamen  Ilvir  municipi  pontifici,  etc. ;   2478,  Imp.   Caes. 

1 1.  c.  p.  205  and  p.  269.  - 1.  c,  p.  166. 


30  Notes  on  the  Syntax  of  the 

Nerva  Traiano  Aim.  Ger.  Dacico;  4834,  Imp.  Caes.  C.  Iulius 
.  .  .  et  0.   Iulius  Verus  .  .  .   principi  iuventutis;  4858,  Imp. 
ar)    C.    [ulius    Vero    Maximinus;    5293,    Caecilia   Q.   f. 
Tuscae;  382,  D.  M.  P.  Lucani  .  .  .  Romae  sepulto. 

Pkonouns. 

The  accurate  distinctions  of  classical  Lai  in  were  not  adapted 
i>-  the  use  of  the  people  and  many  of  them  fall  into  disuse.  It 
would  be  safe  to  assume  that  the  difference  between  suns  and 
eius  or  eorum  would  not  be  well  preserved  in  popular  speech  and 
n  '  has  shown  by  means  of  a  long  list  of  examples  that  the 
boundary  between  these  two  in  Gallic  inscriptions  is  very  nar- 
row. His  results  apply  equally  well  to  Spanish  inscriptions. 
They  show  the  crude  way  of  thinking  of  some  of  these  writers, 
their  careless  method  of  forming  sentences  and  their  inability 
to  carry  out  an  idea  to  its  conclusion.  These  deficiencies  are 
well  indicated,  too,  by  the  use  of  pronouns  in  the  two  inscrip- 
tions following,  in  each  of  which  the  author  misunderstood  the 
form  of  the  inscription;  in  the  one  changing  from  first  person 
to  bird  and  in  the  second,  from  second  person  to  third:  4323, 
Aulidia  Prima  .  .  .  sita  sum  posuit  Florentinus  eius  (for 
meus)  ;  I.  H.  C.  242,  Is  rex  Alfonsi  patris  sui  vestigio  pru- 
denter  .  .  .  regnum  gubernas  (sui  for  tui  and  is  for  tu,  or  else 
gubcrnas  for  gubernat). 

The  curious  appearance  of  what  seems  to  be  a  syncopated 
form  of  the  demonstrative  ille  is  worthy  of  note.  The  brief 
document  in  which  it  is  found  is  without  date,  but  the  reading 
seems  well  attested  and  the  example  genuine.  3668,  La  tumba 
Probac  Publ.  ingenuus  (?)  t.  s.  1.  There  is  good  reason  to  be- 
lieve that,  the  initial  syllable  of  ?7/ewas  very  lightly  utteredwhen 
in  unemphatic  position  and  appeared  as  probably  (iV)lum 
patrem,  (il)lam  matrem,  etc.,  in  pronunciation,  so  that  eventu- 
ally the  definite  article  developed  out  of  these  contracted  forms.2 

1  I.e.,  p.  203. 

;  Lindsay,  The  Latin  Language,  p.  1G7.  4. 


Latin  Inscriptions  found  in  Spain.  31 

La,  then,  in  the  example  given  above  may  be  taken  as  the 
graver's  effort  to  represent  ilia  as  he  heard  it  pronounced  about 
him,  and  may  show  that  even  at  this  period  this  syncopated 
form  was  in  vogue.1  Noteworthy  is  the  for  Latin  redundanl 
use  of  the  demonstrative  pronoun  as  seen  in  a  limited  number 
of  cases.  Many  examples  of  this  Graecism,  if  it  may  be  here 
so  called,  are  given  by  Ronsch.2  Eph.  Ep.  9.  176,  Ut  puellam 
mitteres  illam  (cf.  note  on  the  inscription)  ;  I.  H.  C.  533, 
Q(u)em  .  .  .  sepelivit  earn.  Another  Graecism  that  occurs  in 
late  and  especially  ecclesiastical  Latin  in  which  the  relative 
pronoun  is  regarded  as  a  sort  of  definite  article  is  apparently 
found  in  one  epitaph,  unless  one  prefers  to  regard  uxori  as  in 
apposition.3  5058,  Cui  benemeritae  uxori  .  .  .  Chrysanthus 
dignum  honorem  dedit. 

1  Meyer-Liibke,   I.   c,   2,   p.    135.   99  ff. ;    Rydberg,   Geschichte   des   franzo- 
sischen  a,  p.  271. 

-  Itala  und  Vulgata,  p.  444.  3. 
3  Ronsch,  1.  c,  p.  444.  3. 


32  Notes  on  the  Syntax  of  the 


vkkhs. 


Tenses. 

The  use  of  the  Presenl  for  the  Future  and  vice  versa  is  com- 
mon to  the  language  at  all  periods  and  for  that  matter  to  all 
languages.  Pirson  '  has  outlined  the  extent  of  tin's  usage  in 
the  inscriptions  of  Gaul,  and  the  statement  there  made  will 
apply  also  to  Spanish  inscriptions.  The  construction  is  essen- 
tially vivid  and  colloquial.  At  any  rate  the  two  tenses  seem 
to  be  Lnterchangeahle  at  times  and  occasionally  stand  side  by 
side  in  the  same  sentence  and  construction,  as  indeed,  else- 
where in  late  Latin,  so  that  it  is  impossible  to  tell  which  tense 
was  meant  by  (he  author  to  prevail.  Uncertainty  is  further 
caused  by  the  easy  substitution  of  e  for  l  and  vice  versa.2  2262, 
Tu  qui  stas  et  leges  titulum  meum;  5058,  Dicite  qui  legetis,  cf. 
I.  H.  C.  232,  Dicite  qui  legi(ti)s;  5241,  Die  rogo  qui  transis; 
1235,  Quisquis  legis  .  .  .  sentis  quam  vixerim ;  I.  II.  C.  125, 
1  him  coelum  et  paradisum  accipit  homo;  I.  IT.  C.  112,  Omnibus 
his  inox  est  de  flammis  ilammas  tollere. 

When  one  action  in  the  future  occurs  before  another  also  in 
the  future,  classical  Latin  required  the  antecedent  action  to  be 
written  in  the  Future  Perfect.  The  attempt  is  noticeable  in 
•  inscriptions  to  observe  this  principle,  but  not  infrequently 
confusion  is  apparent  and  the  Future  Peri'::-;  ;^  extended  to 
actions  that  are  purely  contemporaneous  with  the  time  of  the 
principal  verb.  It  seems  that  the  boundaries  of  the  nse  of  the 
Future  Perfect  were  made  narrower,  until  after  the  best  period 
its  substitution  for  the  Future  was  confined  almost  entirely  to 
vulgar  Latin,  where  apparently  there  was  some  inclination  for  it. 

1  I.e..  p.  206. 

2  Bonnet,  1.  c,  p.  634 ;  Schmalz,  1.  c,  p.  334   ( top ) . 


Latin  Inscriptions  found  in  Spain.  33 

Its  use  for  the  Future  in  conversational  idiom  is  familiar.1  Such 
may  be  its  use  in  the  following  examples,  at  any  rate  within 
certain  limits  the  two  tenses  appear  to  be  interchangeable.  1276, 
Quoat  vixero  .  .  .  dividam;  1276,  Quot  praestabo  dumtaxat 
quoat  vixero;  I.  H.  C.  336,  Siquis  .  .  .  inquietare  voluerit  sit 
anathema.  This  halting  between  Future  and  Future  Perfect  is 
further  apparent  in  the  formula  die  qui  praeteris,  etc.  1634, 
Dicite  qui  legitis  s.  t.  t.  1. ;  1126,  Hie  qui  leg(i)s  di(cas)  ;  4174, 
Bene  sit  viator  qui  me  non  praeteristi ;  1728,  Te  rogo  praeteriens 
cum  legis  ut  dicas.  But:  I.  H.  C.  283,  Obsecramus  qui  haec 
legeritis ;  I.  H.  C.  496,  Depreco  vos  .  .  .  qui  ad  hunc  sepulcrum 
intraveritis ;  I.  H.  C.  516,  Qui  legerit  .  .  .  oret.  In  a  single 
inscription  the  inclusive  formula  in  which  the  Present  and 
Future  Perfect  are  used  parallel  with  one  another  is  employed 
in  imitation,  perhaps,  of  well-known  legal  phraseology  and  is 
due  to  a  false  striving  after  exactness.  172,  Quos  .  .  .  Caesari 
inimicos  .  .  .  esse  cognovero  .  .  .  et  siquis  periculum  infert 
intuleritve  si(quis)  sciens  fallo  fefellero-ve,  turn,  etc. 

The  Perfect  Infinitive  as  an  object  of  a  verb  is  uncommon 
here  as  in  the  literature.  Its  use  in  a  few  cases  is  in  conformity 
with  the  construction  found  in  the  poets.2  1414,  Debueras  .  .  . 
habuisse  mille  (annos)  ;  4314,  Quibus  nequeas  opposuisse 
manus. 

Moods. 

Infinitive : — Inasmuch  as  inscriptions  contain  very  little  nar- 
rative and  practically  no  lively  nor  spirited  discourse,  the  His- 
torical Infinitive  rarely  finds  its  way  into  them.  One  example 
only  of  its  use  may  be  found  in  Spanish  inscriptions  and  here 
it  is  well  adjusted  to  its  surroundings.  6278  15,  Statim  sacer- 
dotes  .  .  .  concursare  gaudere  inter  se  loqui.  The  Greek  con- 
struction of  employing  the  Infinitive  as  a  complement  of  ad- 
jectives, so  freely  used  by  the  poets  and  to  some  extent  by  later 
prose  writers  also,  is  occasionally  met  with  here.     However,  the 

^chmalz,  I.e.,  p.  336,  par.  217;  Plautus,  Cap.  194   (Lindsay's  note). 
■G.  L.,  I.e.,  p.  180    (b). 


34  .Xotcs  on  the  Syntax  of  the 

examples  are  drawn  from  poetry,  so  there  is  nothing  incorrect 
aboul  the  usage,  which  is  by  no  means  a  favorite  in  inscriptions 
of  Spain.1  l-'W  1.  NTectamen  ignari  flectere lora manu ;  I.  H.  C. 
361,  Est  homines  vivificare  potens.  The  same  remarks  apply 
to  the  passive  Infinitive  wiih  dignus  in  the  case  of  which  the 
ls  acting  within  his  rights  in  employing  it  in  a  metrical 
inscription.2  I.  II.  C.  392,  Dignus  apostolico  primus  honore 
coli.  Several  authcnlic  cases  of  the  Infinitive  to  express  pur- 
pose appear.  It  is  essentially  popular  in  sphere  and  is  sup- 
!  to  have  heeu  adopted  from  vulgar  Latin  by  poets  and  late 
prose  writers.  All  of  the  examples  occurring  in  these  inscrip- 
tions  are  found  in  metrical  epitaphs.2  4427,  Manes  si  saperent 
miseram  me  abducerent  coniugem  vivere  iam  quo  me  lucem  iam 
nolo  videre;  I.  II.  C.  158,  Cum  flamma  vorax  veniet  comburere 
terras. 

Indicative  in  Indirect  Questions: — The  only  peculiarity  to 
be  noted  in  connection  with  the  Indicative  Mood  is  its  use  in 
indirect  questions.  At  bottom,  it  is  only  one  of  the  many 
evidences  of  the  popular  character  of  inscriptions,  since  this^like 
the  Indicative  in  deliberative  questions,  is  a  feature  of  colloquial 
and  poetical,  as  it  is  of  late  Latin  usage.  With  these  facts  in 
mind,  it  would  virtually  amount  to  a  peculiarity  were  this  use 
of  the  Indicative  not  found  in  Spanish  inscriptions,  even  though 
it  is  not  met  with  in  classical  prose.4  4426,  Aspice  quam 
subito  marcet  quod  floruit  ante  aspice  quam  subito  quod  stetit 
ante  cadit ;  6130,  Quare  mortuus  sum  nescio;  I.  H.  C.  219, 
Quis  quantusve  fuit  Samson  .  .  .  personat  Esperio;  I.  H.  C. 
255,  Omnis  conventus  conoscat  q(u)orum  .  .  .  veneratur  re- 
liquias. 

Subjunctive   for   Imperative: — In   certain   legal    documents 

1  Kiihner.  I.e.,  2.  p.  504   (d)  ;  Draeger,  I.e.,  2,  p.  37S.  3. 

-  Draeger,  I.e.,  2,  p.  331,  par.  421. 

8  Draeger,  I.e.,  2,  p.  307,  par.  433;  Kiihner,  I.e.,  2,  p.  501,  G  (a): 
"Ronsch,  1.  c.,  p.  447. 

*  Draeger,  I.e.,  2,  p.  474;  Kiihner,  I.e.,  2,  p.  080.  2  with  references; 
Niemann,  Etudes  sur  la  langue  et  la  grammaire  de  Tite-Live,  p.  301.  n. 
3  and  p.  10.  n.  1;  cf.  Prop.  3.  5.  2Gff.;  Bonnet,  1.  c.,  p.  G7G  and  refs. 


Latin  Inscriptions  found  in  Spain.  35 

found  in  these  inscriptions  notably  5181,  5439,  1963,  1964,  the 
Second  Imperative  is  almost  exclusively  used  and  this  is  in  con- 
formity with  Latin  usage  in  such  documents.  This  very  fact 
makes  the  one  example  of  the  Subjunctive  found  in  an  inscrip- 
tion like  the  following  worthy  of  notice:1  5181  49,  Profite- 
antur  et  salvant   (cf.  note). 

Mood  after  Conjunctions: — Little  out  of  the  ordinary  is 
found,  but  we  may  discuss  the  following:  Peculiar  is  the  em- 
ployment of  dum  with  the  Subjunctive  in  a  manner  exactly 
parallel  with  the  use  of  cum,  however,  retaining  its  distinctive 
meaning  of  "  while,  as  long  as,  etc."  This  may  be  due  to  the 
fact  that  dum  =  while  and  cum  =  when  are  separated  by  very 
narrow  limits,  and  to  a  consequent  blending  or  obliteration  of 
the  limits  of  the  two.  The  construction  is  also  found  in  the 
Latin  of  Gregory  of  Tours.2  I.  H.  C.  12,  Dum  simul  .  .  .  cum 
viro  carpere(m)  vitam  .  .  .  me  fortuna  tulit;  I.  H.  C.  65, 
Iamq(ue)  novem  lustris  gaudens  du(m)  vita  maneret.  In  still 
another  example  dum  has  both  the  meaning  and  construction  of 
cum.3  I.  H.  C.  385,  Dumque  supremus  litui  crepor  concusserit 
orbem.  In  dextera  .  .  .  queat  tunc  sorte(m)  adesse.  Forsi- 
tan  appears  probably  only  once  in  all  Spanish  inscriptions  and 
their  tendency  to  depart  from  classical  models  is  shown  in  this 
instance  by  the  use  of  the  Indicative;  unless  one  prefers  to 
regard  it  as  an  adverb  here  rather  than  as  a  conjunction  as 
sometimes  in  Livy.4  4314,  Pavisti  vivo  forsitam  ipse  mihi. 
In  apparently  the  only  case  in  which  quamquam  occurs,  it  is 
found  in  the  Subjunctive.  6278  27,  Quamquam  .  .  .  nonnulli 
arbitrentur. 

Impersonal  Verbs. 

Such  Impersonal  Verbs  as  pudet,  piget,  were  used  personally 
in  the  literature,  but  almost  wholly  in  early  or  late  Latin.  The 
examples  that  can  be  cited,  though  not  numerous,  seem  to  show 

^x-L.,  I.e.,  par.  268.  2. 

2  Bonnet,  I.e.,  p.  319;  Sehmalz,  I.e.,  par.  306.  2. 

sKuhner,  I.e.,  2,  p.  909,  Eem.  3.  4  Riemann,  I.e.,  p.  292. 


36  Xotes  on  the  Syntax  of  the 

this.1  An  example  of  each  of  the  above  verbs  used  personally 
can  be  given  from  Spanish  inscriptions  and  it  is  possible  that 
here,  too,  the  influence  of  misereor  is  at  work.  I.  II.  C.  496, 
Depreco  vos  .  .  .  pro  me  Adefonso  orare  non  pigeatis;  4284, 
Si  sordes,  patior ;  sed  pudet  hospitium. 

Regimen  of  Veebs. 

In  the  matter  of  construction,  verbs  as  employed  in  Spanish 
inscriptions  closely  resemble  the  verb  of  Silver  Latin.  They 
represent  a  wide  sphere  of  extension  over  classical  usage,  as 
judged  from  the  government  of  those  with  which  we  meet.  The 
following  list  presents  peculiarity  either  by  wholly  departing 
from  the  classical  norm  or  by  adopting  a  regimen  not  often 
used  in  the  best  period.  They  may  be  grouped  broadly  under 
two  heads  : 

1.  Verbs  that  rarely  or  never  take  an  Infinitive  construc- 
tion in  good  Latin  are  loosely  so  employed. 

Cavere. — In  the  example  to  be  cited  cavere  seems  to  be 
identical  in  meaning  with  curare.  The  occurrences  of  cavere 
with  an  Infinitive  are  not  many  at  any  period  of  the  language ; 
the  examples  given  by  Draeger  2  with  few  exceptions  are  all 
equivalents  of  the  Imperative,  so  that  this  example  appears  to 
be  rather  out  of  the  ordinary  for  prose.  1359,  Qui  .  .  .  caverat 
sepulcrum  sibi  fieri. 

Concedere. — The  Infinitive  construction  with  this  verb  is 
usual  only  when  the  passive  is  used.  In  the  active  it  is  rare 
even  in  the  poets.3     89,  Quai  fate  concesserunt  vivere. 

Decernere. — Here  the  Infinitive  construction  is  evidently  by 
analogy  to  iubere.  cf.  964,  Statuam  poni  iussit.  Numerous 
examples  of  this  kind  might  be  given.  Draeger  4  cites  a  single 
example  similar  to  that  given  below  and  this  is  taken  from  an 
African    inscription.     Such    an    example    as:    1130,    Statuam 


1Neue,  I.e.,  3,  p.  C53. 

=  1.  c,  2,  p.  334;   G-L.,  1.  c,  par.  548.  3. 

3  Draeger,  1.  c.,  2,  p.  330.  *  1.  c.,  2,  p.  407. 


Latin  Inscriptions  found  in  Spain.  37 

ponendam  decrevit  gives  the  normal  construction  in  these  in- 
scriptions after  decemere.  5522,  Statuam  equestrem  poni  de- 
crevit Quintia. 

Eligere. — I.  II.  C.  12,  Hoc  loco  erga  meos  elegi  quiescere 
proles. 

Mereri. — With  an  Infinitive  first  in  Propertius.1  I.  H.  C. 
96,  Mereamur  ingredi  paradisi  i(a)nue. 

Permittere. — The  Infinitive  here  belongs  to  the  sphere  of 
Silver  Latinity.2  I.  H.  C.  501,  Ut  non  permitas  introire 
angelum,  etc. 

Praecipere. — In  late  Latin  praecipere  became  equivalent  to 
inhere  and  is  often  so  employed  by  the  Church  Fathers.3  4853, 
(V)ias  et  pontes  .  .  .  restitui  praec(e)perun(t). 

Sancire. — The  customary  regimen  otf  sancire  when  followed 
by  a  clause  is  ut  -f-  Subjunctive.  Draeger  4  mentions  the  In- 
finitive construction,  but  is  not  definite.  Cicero  lexicons  reveal 
no  example  similar  to  those  appended.  I.  H.  C.  253,  Hanc 
aulam  construere  sancserunt;  I.  H.  C.  259,  Hanc  aedificari 
sanxit  munitionem. 

2.  Verbs  of  miscellaneous  constructions. 

Credere. — This  verb  in  a  late  Christian  inscription  shows  the 
effect  of  the  late  Latin  extension  of  the  quod  construction,  em- 
ploying it  instead  of  the  Accusative  -4-  Infinitive.5  I.  H.  C.  95, 
Credo  quod  redemptor  meus  vivet. 

Curare. — In  a  single  inscription  curare  is  followed  by  the 
Past  Participle  instead  of  the  Gerundive  which  is  its  ordinary 
construction.  It  is  a  usage  peculiar  to  early  Latin ;  only  missam 
facere  occurs  in  the  classical  period.6     453,   Factum  curavit 

1  Draeger,  I.e.,  2,  p.  331;  Pirson,  I.e.,  p.  214. 

3  Draeger,  I.e.,  2,  p.  330;  Kiihner,  1.  c.,  2,  p.  809.3. 

"Schmalz,  I.e.,  p.  291.  "I.e.,  2,  p.  249. 

"  Ronsch,  1.  c.,  p.  427 ;  Mayen,  De  Particulis  quod  quia  quoniam  quo- 
modo  ut  pro  Ace.  cum  Infinitivo  post  Verba  sentiendi  et  declarandi  positis. 
Diss.,  Kiel,   1889;   Plautus,  As.   52    (Gray's   note). 

aG.  L.,  1.  c,  par.  537.2;  Kiihner,  1.  c,  2,  p.  572   (d). 


38  Notes  on  the  Syntax  of  the 

Progela,  etc.  In  still  another  example  it  is  found  with  the 
Infinitive,  which  again  Le  limited  in  usage.1  4788,  Restituere 
(c)urarunt. 

Dicere. — Somewhat  similar  to  the  regimen  of  credere  just 
discussed  is  that  of  dicere  in  an  epitaph  where  it  is  followed  by 
an  at  clause.  It  is  barely  possible  to  regard  it  as  introducing 
an  Indirect  Question.2  I.  H.  C.  232,  D(i)cete  qui  leg(it)is  ut 
me  peccat(o)rem  memor  habeas  (?)  sacra  ex  oratione. 

Inhere. — This  verb  to  all  appearances  presents  the  unique 
construction  of  the  Infinitive  combined  with  a  Subjunctive 
clause  in  the  same  sentence.  Somewhat  similar  instances  are 
seen  in  the  Latin  of  Gregory  of  Tours.3  I.  II.  C.  494,  Iuss(i)t 
renovari  .  .  .  et  pro  tali  laborem  sit  illi  .  .  .  adiutorem. 

Nolle. — The  Ace.  -f-  Inf.  with  same  subject  is  not  usual  with 
this  verb.4     4427,  Me  lucem  iam  nolo  videre. 

It  remains  to  call  attention  to  the  frequency  with  which  ut 
is  omitted  after  verbs  of  asking,  beseeching,  etc.,  so  charac- 
teristic of  Petronius  and  of  conversational  idiom  in  general.5 
462,  Te  rogo  oro  obsecro  uti  vindices;  558,  Oro  ut  .  .  .  dicas. 
But:  540,  958,  Te  rogo  .  .  .  dicas ;  1235,  Hoc  peto  nunc  dicas ; 
1580,  Te  lapis  obtestor  .  .  .  residas;  I.  H.  C.  242,  Quaesumus 
.  .  .  dei  gratia  parcat  ei. 

Compound  Verbs. 

Here  may  be  treated  the  use  of  the  simple  for  the  compound 
verb  and  vice  versa.  It  has  already  been  emphasized  by  those 
who  have  touched  upon  this  subject  that  the  use  of  the  simple 
for  the  corresponding  compound  verb  and  vice  versa  is  a  feature 
of  poetical  diction  and,  with  limitations,  of  certain  prose  writers 

1G-'L.,  1.  c,  par.  423,  n.  2;  Kiihner,  1.  c,  2,  p.  491   (e)  ;  Pirson,  1.  c,  p.  216. 
8  Ronsch,  1.  c,  pp.  445  and  427. 

'Bonnet,  I.e.,  pp.  667  and  668;  Saffold,  The  Constructions  with  Iubeo. 
Johns  Hopkins  University  Diss.,  1902. 

'Draeger,  I.e.,  2,  p.  402   (c)  ;  Schmalz,  I.e.,  p.  290,  par.  154. 
5  G-L.,  1.  c.,  par.  546.2,  Rem.  2. 


Latin  Inscriptions  found  in  Spain.  39 

of  the  Augustan  Age  and  after.  In  both  it  may  be  due  largely 
to  striving  after  rhetorical  effect.  It  is  also  a  characteristic  of 
the  sermo  plebeius  and  one  would  expect  to  find  something  of  this 
interchange  in  inscriptions,  which  are  fairly  representative  of 
this  type.1  If  the  subject  be  fraught  with  difficulties  in  dealing 
with  it  as  it  appears  in  the  literature,  it  is  none  the  less  so  in  a 
field  like  epigraphy.  However,  some  evidence  of  this  phenome- 
non seems  to  appear  in  these  inscrijDtions,  and,  though  it  is  im- 
possible to  be  altogether  definite  in  view  of  the  small  amount  of 
material  available  and  the  consequent  impossibility  to  duplicate 
examples,  yet  a  number  of  these  cases  may  be  worth  noticing 
and  as  far  as  practicable  strengthening  with  citations  from  other 
sources. 

Cludo  for  Includo.2 — 4550,  Cuius  basis  lapidea  aere  clusa; 
1821,  Herenia  .  .  .  inclusa  hoc  tumulo;  I.  H.  C.  144,  Inclusi 
tenerum  praetioso  marmore  corpus. 

Efficio  for  Facio. — I.  H.  C.  245,  Pontifex  effectus. 

Fero  for  Aufero  or  other  compounds.3 — 1413,  Viginti  .  .  . 
tecum  nam  f ers  .  .  .  annos ;  I.  H.  C.  34%  Te  matremque  teni- 
pus  enorme  tulit;  I.  H.  C.  12,  Me  fortuna  tulit;  I.  H.  C.  223, 
Ad  eroas  latus  (e)st;  cf.  1414,  LXX  tecum  transfers  non 
amplius  annos ;  6064,  Cui  Parca  vitam  abstulerit  praemature. 

Fungor  for  Defungor. — I.  II.  C.  217,  Functus  in  hac  aula 
quiescit.  Examples  of  defungor  in  this  sense  are  plentiful.  The 
reverse  with  a  different  meaning  for  the  verbs  may  occur:  4261, 
Defuncto  honoribus.  Here  functus  is  practically  always  found, 
occasionally  perfunctus.  4526,  Omnibus  honoribus  in  rep(ub.) 
sua  perfuncto;  4205,  4201,  Ob  legationem  qua  .  .  .  funct(us) 
est;  4203,  4207,  Omnib(us)  honorib(us)   .  .  .  functo. 

Infero  for  Aufero. — I.  H.  C.  249b,  Quisquis  inferre  .  .  . 
donaria  nostra  presumpserit ;  cf.  I.  H.  C.  256,  Quisquis 
auferre  .  .  .  donaria  nostra  sumpserit. 

1  Wilson,  Transactions  A.  P.  A.  XXXI,  1900,  p.  205  and  refs. 
2Tac,    Ger.   45.   Animalia  .  .  .  quae   implicata   humore   mox    durescente 
materia   cluduntur    (Furneaux'   note). 
3  Eiemann,  1.  c.,  p.  194. 


40  Notes  on  the  Syntax  of  the 

Loquor  for  Conloquor. — 6278  15,  Inter  se  loqui. 

Plea  for  Impleo.* — 6278 38,  Tantisper  plendi  mimeri  gre- 
ga  riorum  gratia. 

Scando  for  Conscendo.2 — I.  II.  C.  255,  Scendens  Xrs  in 
altum.  This  is  frequent  enough  in  good  prose,  but  as  a  rule 
conscendo  is  used  in  these  inscriptions. 

Teneo  for  Continco  or  other  compounds? — I.  H.  C.  142,  Haec 
tenet  (u)rna  .  .  .  corpus,  etc.  cf.  I.  H.  C.  363,  Retinet  quos 
Corduba;  I.  H.  C.  129,  Ista  vorax  fossa  Dominici  continet  ossa; 
I.  II.  C.  123,  Haec  cava  saxa  contine(n)t  membra. 

Transeo  for  Praetereo.4 — 3181,  Qui  transis  lege.  In  the 
literature  these  two  verbs  appear  to  be  interchangeable,  but  a 
casual  glance  at  Spanish  inscriptions  will  show  that  in  this 
formula  praetereo  is  practically  always  employed.  The  above 
example  is  the  only  one  of  transeo. 

To  these  may  be  added  certain  others  of  frequent  occurrence, 
where  the  use  alternates  between  simple  and  compound  and 
which  may  be  said  to  be  practically  interchangeable  everywhere. 
It  is  superfluous  to  name  them  at  any  length.  Such  are :  decoro 
and  condecoro)  Eph.  Ep.  8.  194,  Monumento  hoc  condecoravit : 
condo  and  recondo ;  I.  H.  C.  85,  Hie  sunt  reliquiae  conditae ; 
I.  H.  C.  88,  Hie  sunt  reconditae:  iungo  and  coniungo;  I.  H.  C. 
34a,  Tumulo  iungeris;  I.  H.  C.  213,  Atletis  iungitur  rite;  I.  H. 
C.  255,  His  pariter  co(n)iunctae  sunt;  I.  H.  C.  218b,  Coniunc- 
tus  mansit:  curro  and  percurro;  5975,  Quisquis  in  has  partes 
quisquis  percurr(is)  :  moveo  and  promoveo;  6278  37,  Lanistas 
etiam  promovendos  vili  studio:  sacro  and  consecro;  2243,  C. 
Valerius  .  .  .  hie  consecravit;  I.  H.  C.  172  and  175,  Ecclesiae 
sacratae  sunt;  I.  H.  C.  100.4,  Consecrata  e(st)  baselica  haec. 

Prepositions. 

A  or  Ab. — The  only  peculiarity  here  is  one  of  form.     In  sev- 
eral inscriptions,  a  is  used  instead  of  ab  before  a  word  beginning 

1  Festus,  p.  291,  de  Ponor.  2  Riemann,  1.  c,  p.  198. 

8  Riemann,  1.  c,  p.   197. 

4Cf.  Vergil,  Aen.  5.  326    (Conington's  note);   Prop.  3.  7.  27. 


Latin  Inscriptions  found  in  Spain.  41 

with  a  vowel.  Other  examples  do  not  appear  to  be  at  hand.1 
4895,  4896,  4899,  A  Augustobriga. 

Cam. — The  analytical  tendency  of  this  period  of  Latin  is 
shown  by  a  late  Christian  inscription  in  which  means  is  ex- 
pressed by  the  aid  of  cum.  This  may  be  styled  an  ante-classical 
and  post-classical  usage.  Many  examples  occur  in  the  Latin  of 
Gregory  of  Tours.2  I.  H.  C.  238,  Cum  dei  adminiclo  Frankila 
abba  condidit  opus.  The  Ablative,  usually  with  the  preposition 
cum,  is  regularly  employed  as  in  classical  Latin  to  express  the 
appurtenances  of  a  thing,  in  particular  of  grounds  and  buildings 
dedicated  to  the  gods.  To  this,  one  possible  exception  is  noted  in 
Spanish  inscriptions  and  here  the  simple  Ablative  is  used.  The 
text,  however,  is  probably  corrupt.  3960,  Compararunt  locum 
uti  est  concameratum  parietib(us)  balneis  hortis  monumentum 
construxerunt.  cf.  1163,  Sig(num)  (aere)um  .  .  .  cum  base 
d.d. ;  1956,  Porticus  ad  balineum  solo  suo  cum  piscina  et  signo 
Cupidinis  .  .  .  d.d.;  2326,  Venerem  Aug.  cum  parergo;  3240, 
Factis  pontibus  et  fistulis  .  .  .  cum  suis  ornamentis. 

De. — The  Ablative  with  de  is  used  to  indicate  the  means  by 
which  something  is  erected  and  is  especially  common  in  the 
phrases  de  suo,  de  meo,  etc.3  It  has  been  shown  by  Pirson  4  that 
in  Gallic  inscriptions  means  is  seldom  expressed  by  the  simple 
Ablative  as  in  fecit  impensa  sua.  In  Spanish  inscriptions,  how- 
ever, the  simple  Ablative  in  such  phrases  is  found  almost,  if  not 
quite,  as  frequently  as  the  prepositional  form  de  sua  pecunia. 
The  preposition  is  exclusively  used  only  in  de  suo  posuit.  1277, 
1341,  2035,  2041,  Sua  pecunia  posuit;  1250,  1367,  Impensa  sua 
fecit;  1724,  Impensa  sua  extruxit;  2070,  Sumptu  publico 
posuit;  3570,  Sua  pecunia  restituerunt ;  3240,  3280,  5181 19, 
Sua  omni  impensa. 

Many  cases  of  de  and  the  Ablative  instead  of  the  Partitive 
Genitive  occur  in  examples  where  classical  Latin  furnishes  a 


1  Neue,  I.  c,  2,  pp.  827  ff. 

sBonnet,  I.e.,  p.  603;   Kiihner,  1.  c,  2,  par.  93.3    (c)  y;  Schmalz,  I.e.,  p. 
272,  par.  128. 

"Draeger,  I.e.,  1,  p.  628.  "I.e.,  p.  197. 


42  Notes  on  the  Syntax  of  the 

sufficient  parallel.    Eph.  Ep.  8.128,  Aemilio  Balaeso  .  .  .  cog- 
natio  de  cen(turia)  ;  1585,  M.  Pompeius .  .  .  primus  de  familia 

Pompeia;  Eph.  Ep.  8.30,  Si  qui  de  meis.  Also  in  places  where 
no  pronoun  or  word  upon  which  the  expression  depends  is 
written:  5439  :u~\  Si  quis  accusator  de  suo  tempore  alteri  con- 
cesaerit.  But  the  frequency  of  this  partitive  use  of  de,  as  well 
as  its  tendency  to  supplant  the  Genitive,  is  best  illustrated  in 
late  Christian  inscriptions,  where  the  best  defined  examples  may 
be  seen.1  These  examples  mark  an  advance  over  the  same  or 
similar  construction  found  in  classical  Latin  in  that  here  the  de 
phrase  and  the  Genitive  are  not  only  parallel,  but  practically 
equivalent,  as  shown  by  their  use  in  the  same  sentence.  I.  II.  C. 
I75b,  Kecondite  sunt  ic  reli(quiae)  cruore  .  .  .  pane  .  .  . 
cruce  .  .  .  de  sepulcro  .  .  .  cruci3 ;  I.  II.  C.  255,  Intra  prae- 
ciosisima  praesentis  arce  latera  hoc  est  de  ligno  plurimum  sive 
de  cruce  d(omi)ni;  de  vestimento  illius  .  .  .  de  pane  .  .  .  de 
sepul(c)ro  .  .  .  atque  sudario  et  cruore  .  .  .  de  vestimentis 
.  .  .  de  lacte;  quaedam  .  .  .  et  reliquiae  .  .  .  ho(c  est)  .  .  . 
de  S(an)c(t)o  Tome,  s(an)c(t)i  Bartolom(ei),  (d)e  omnibus 
ap(osto)lis  et  de  aliis  quam  plurimis  s(an)c(t)is;  I.  H.  C.  263, 
Hie  sunt  reliquie  S.  Mariae  de  lacte  eius,  de  S.  Paulo,  de  S. 
Vincent.,  etc. ;  I.  H.  C.  471,  Hie  si\ut  reliquiae  reconditae,  id 
s(unt)t  d(e)  cruore  dni  de  ligno  dni  de  sepulcro  .  .  .  See 
Marie,  s(an)c(t)or(um)  Petri  et  Pauli;  I.  H.  C.  260  (see  p. 
120  addenda),  Keliquiae  que  ibi  sunt:  de  ligno  dni,  .  .  .  de 
pane  dni,  de  sepulcro  dni.  By  the  side  of  these  we  may  put 
certain  cases  of  the  real  Partitive  construction  as  it  exists  in  Old 
Spanish,  where  it  occurs  with  no  great  degree  of  frequency.2 
Poema  del  Cid  481,  Tanto  traen  las  grandes  ganancias,  muchos 
gariados  de  averes  e  de  vacas  e  de  ropas  e  de  otras  riquiezas ; 
Poema  del  Cid  673,  No  nos  daran  del  pan ;  Libro  de  Alexandre 
770%  Priso  luego  la  manga  e  saco  de  los  granos ;  Libro  de 
Apolonio  289c,  Priso  del  puro  balsamo.     This  analytical  ten- 

1  Juvenal,  ed.  H.  L.  Wilson,  Introd.,  p.  xlvii   (d)   and  references;  Keisig, 
Lateinische  Sprachwissenschaft,  3,  p.  694   (note). 

2  Meyer-Lubke,  1.  c.,  3,  p.  404,  par.  366. 


Latin  Inscriptions  found  in  Spain.  43 

dency  is  pronounced  in  a  few  examples  where  de  -f-  Ablative 
takes  the  place  of  the  simplest  form  of  the  Latin  Genitive.1 
I.  H.  C.  472,  Episcopus  de  Sanctae  Mariae  feci ;  I.  H.  C.  284, 
Rogare  pro  anima  de  d(omini)co  Belazani;  I.  II.  C.  34,  Ego 
Simeon  films  de  Rebbi,  etc. 

Ex. — Apparently  ex  gives  a  loose  way  of  expressing  means  in 
an  inscription  too  corrupt  to  deal  with  accurately  (cf.  note  on 
the  line).  I.  H.  C.  276,  Mee  arcitecton  fuit  facta  ex  mea 
munera  emta  hec  domus.  In  Cicero  the  verb  recreare  regularly 
takes  the  preposition  ex  with  the  noun  indicating  that  from 
which  one  is  recovering,  while  the  simple  Ablative  marks  the 
means.  From  Spanish  inscriptions  we  may  cite  the  following : 
2036,  Ancipiti  morbo  recreatus. 

In. — With  the  signification  of  "  in  accordance  with,"  "  with 
respect  to,"  the  preposition  in  goes  back  to  the  early  period  of 
the  language,  but  is  limited  to  a  given  number  of  formulae. 
Cicero  has  the  expressions  ill  formulam,  in  sententiam;  Plautus, 
in  leges,  in  formam,  in  faciem,  in  speciem,  etc.  Naturally  one 
finds  the  list  of  such  examples  lengthened  in  later  writers. 
The  expression  in  verba  seems  not  to  appear  prior  to  Livy  and 
Quintilian.  It  is  in  conformity  with  the  usage  of  this  school 
that  we  find  it  in  these  inscriptions.2  5406,  Neve  ut  in  ea 
verba  quae  in  verba  .  .  .  dari  solet  repromitteret. 

With  verbs  of  motion  at  this  period  there  was  a  wavering  be- 
tween the  simple  Accusative  and  an  Accusative  construction 
with  the  appropriate  preposition.  (See  the  construction  with 
ingredior,  p.  25).  It  is  doubtless  due  to  this  uncertainty  that 
the  preposition  in  is  written  after  one  of  these  verbs,  where  in 
good  Latin  a  simple  Accusative  of  the  Direct  Object  is  usual  and 
sufficient.3     4514,  Consecutus  in  honores  aedilicios. 

Followed  by  the  Ablative  in  is  used  in  a  few  examples  ap- 
parently expressing  means.4     I.  H.  C.  143,  Posside  constructam 

1  Bonnet,  I.e.,  p.  611;  Pirson,  I.e.,  p.  196  and  ref. 

2  Draeger,  1.  c.,  1,  p.  656.  3  Carney,  I.  c.,  p.  267. 

4  Draeger,  I.e.,  1,  p.  652.12;  Schmalz,  I.e.,  p.  275;  Kuhner,  I.e.,  2,  p. 
408.  3. 


44  Notes  on  the  Syntax  of  the 

in  aeterno  munere  sedem;  I.  H.  C.  363,  Factis  celebrantur  in 
istis.  In  others  it  occurs  in  a  way  almost  parallel  with  cum, 
perhaps  traceable  to  the  influence  of  the  Vulgate.1  I.  II.  C.  33, 
Requicvit  in  pace;  I.  II.  C.  335,  Sepelivit  earn  hac  tuniulo 
ecclesiae  in  pace;  cf.  I.  II.  C.  186,  Vixit  .  .  .  cum  pace;  I.  H. 
C.  34,  Ingrede  cum  pace.  It  is  further  seen  in  a  certain  number 
of  metaphorical  relations  for  which  parallels  may  be  found  in 
the  literature.2  I.  H.  C.  413b,  Praefluus  in  lacrimis;  I.  II.  C. 
277,  Momus  in  corpore  vivens  fecit;  4967.40  (a),  Vivas  in 
Christo,  (b)  Spes  in  deo. 

In  the  examples  just  considered  the  preposition  is  analogous 
to  the  English  idiom  in  similar  cases.  In  one  or  two  more  it  is 
not  only  parallel  with  English,  but  at  the  same  time  further 
removed  from  standard  Latin  usage.  I.  H.  C.  215,  Annos  in 
tempore  quattuor;  I.  H.  C.  396,  Datum  est  .  .  .  in  auro  soledos 
III.  cf.  Spanish  pagar  in  auro.3 

It  is  customary  in  Spanish  inscriptions,  as  in  others  also,  and 
in  classical  Latin  for  the  word  nomen  to  be  used  in  the  simple 
Ablative  to  express  in  whose  name  a  given  action  is  performed 
or  anything  is  donated.  In  a  few  late  inscriptions  in  is  found 
inserted  with  nomen  and  may  possibly  be  explained  by  the 
growing  tendency  to  resort  to  the  analytical  construction,  as  in 
the  case  of  de  already  noticed,  and  so  to  simplify  the  complexity 
of  classical  Latin.  I.  H.  C.  259,  265,  267,  269.  In  nomine 
domini  dei,  etc.  Deserving  mention  only  for  its  strangeness  is 
an  example  of  in  like  the  following,  where  Hiibner  attempts  to 
explain  its  presence  by  confusion  on  the  part  of  the  author  with 
intempenes:  4853,  (Via)s  et  pont(e)s  in  temporibu3  vetustate 
conlap(s)os. 

Iuxta. — The  use  of  iuxta  with  the  meaning  of  "  according 
to "  is  distinctly  late.4  191,  Thermae  .  .  .  renovatae  a  solo 
iuxta  iussionem  humeri,  etc. 

1  Pirson,  1.  c,  p.  198.  2  Draeger,  I.  c,  1,  p.  652.  10. 

8  Meyer-Liibke,  I.  c,  3,  p.  526. 

*  Draeger,  I.e.,  1,  p.  587.3    (b)  ;  Hand,  Tursellinus,  3,  p.  542.7;  Pireon, 
I.e.,  p.  273. 


Latin  Inscriptions  found  in  Spain.  45 

Per. — The  ordinary  prose  construction  used  in  referring  to 
the  building  or  location  of  a  bridge  upon  a  river  was  in  -j- 
Ablative.  In  the  example  below,  per  is  employed  and  the  ex- 
planation probably  is  because  via  is  metaphorically  used  for 
pons,  so  that  per  applies  to  the  former,  in  to  the  latter.1  I.  H. 
C.  23a,  Perdiderat  usum  suspensa  via  per  amnem. 

Pro. — Pro  is  employed  only  in  late  inscriptions  with  the 
object  for  which  something  is  given  in  exchange  and  is  so  con- 
strued in  the  literature  also.2  I.  H.  C.  494,  Aveat  pro  tali 
facto  .  .  .  remuneracionem ;  I.  H.  C.  396,  Datum  est  pro  locello 
.  .  .  soledos  III.  In  classical  Latin,  pro  was  attached  to  cer- 
tain verbs,  such  as  petere,  supplicare,  etc.,  with  the  appropriate 
idea  of  "  in  behalf  of."  In  later  writers  it  was  extended  to  other 
verbs,  such  as  timere,  sollicitari,  etc.3  It  is  by  analogy  with 
these  and  especially  with  orare  that  in  these  inscriptions  pro 
is  found  with  rogare,  which  at  t-his  period  had  taken  on  the 
meaning  of  "  pray  "  in  an  intransitive  sense.  I.  IT.  C.  284, 
Rogare  pro  anima,  etc. 

Secundum. — This  preposition  deserves  mention  only  on  ac- 
count of  the  unusual  phrase  of  which  it  forms  a  part.  Here  it 
means  "  along,"  as  in  Latin  of  all  periods.4  But  it  appears  in 
the  phrase  secundum  parietem  as  a  substitute  for  in  f route,  a 
turn  probably  occurring  nowhere  else  (cf.  editor's  note).  Eph. 
Ep.  9.78,  Primigenia  .  .  .  h.  s.  e.  s.  t.  t.  1. ;  secundo  paricte 
p.  VII.     In  a.  p.  X. 

Sub. — Sub  is  regularly  employed  in  set  phrases  to  deuote 
time.5  I.  H.  C.  328,  Sub  mence  Novernbres;  I.  H.  C.  338,  379, 
304,  Recessit  in  pace  sub  die  idus,  etc.  It  is  further  employed 
in  a  variety  of  phrases  where  it  was  but  sparingly  used  by  clas- 
sical writers,  but  more  frequently  by  later  authors.  518,  Sub 
cura ;  1423,  Sub  nomine  meo ;  I.  H.  C.  472,  Sub  Chr(ist)i  nme  ; 
I.  H.  C.  244,  Sub  Christi  .  .  .  gratia  .  .  .  fecit;  I.  H.C.  361, 

1Draeger.  I.e.,  1,  p.  647   (d)  ;  Kiihner,  I.e.,  2,  p.  408   (top). 
3Draeger,  I.e.,  1,  p.  643.3.  3Draeger,  I.e.,  1,  p.  643.2. 

4Draeger,  I.e.,  1,  p.  600   (b). 
BDraeger,  I.e.,  1,  pp.  661-662;  Schmalz,  I.e.,  p.  276,  par.  137. 


46  Notes  on  the  Syntax  of  the 

Sub  terrors  .  .  .  metuentcs  ite;  I.II.C.  470,  Sub  virtus 
Christi;  I.  II.  C.  470,  Sub  miserieordiu  et  gratia  domini. 
Separate  citation  is  merited  by  the  phrase:  4514,  Sub  cadem 
forma.  It  is  apparently  an  obvious  parallel  to  the  phrases  sub 
formula,  sub  lege  of  classical  authors.1  In  certain  other  connec- 
tions this  preposition  is  superfluous,  since  its  omission  would 
constitute  an  Ablative  Absolute  construction.  However,  similar 
examples  are  found  in  Livy.2  I.  II.  C.  519,  Sub  Daciano  pre- 
side ;  I.  II.  C.  469,  Sub  valente  .  .  .  Adefonso  principe. 

Super. — Occasionally  super  is  used  to  denote  excess.  I.  II.  C. 
470,  Era  LXXVIII  super  millesima.  But  especially  is  it 
allied  with  later  usage  in  the  phrase  super  omnes.3  4105,  Su- 
(per)  omnes  retro  princi(pes)  providentissimo ;  4112,  Su(per) 
omnes  reliqu(os)  praesedes  iustissimo;  I.II.C.  362,  Super 
omnia  castos. 

Adverbs. 

From  Demonstrative  and  Eelative  Pronouns  are  formed  a  set 
of  adverbs  indicating  place  and  direction  which,  in  standard 
prose,  are  marked  by  the  frequency  as  well  as  by  the  carefulness 
and  accuracy  of  their  use.  The  '  whither,'  '  where '  and 
'  whence  '  adverbs  were  restricted  each  to  its  proper  sphere 
and  no  infringement  of  one  upon  the  territory  of  the  other 
was  allowed.  Just  as  in  English  '  there '  and  '  where  '  are 
used  indifferently  of  situation  and  motion  to  a  place,  so  it  is 
probable  that  in  colloquial  Latin  this  same  confusion  was  usual 
and  accepted.4  The  loss  of  distinction  may  also  be  inferred 
from  the  Romance  derivatives.5  In  Spanish  inscriptions  and 
especially  in  the  later  ones  it  is  just  this  imperfect  distinction 
between  these  classes  of  adverbs  that  is  noticeable ;  so  that  the 
boundary  between  liinc  and  hie,  ibi  and  eo  becomes  extremely 

1Drager,  I.e.,  1,  p.  GG1   (e)   and  (f)  ;  Kiihner,  I.e.,  2,  p.  302,  Rem.  31. 

-  Draeger,  I.e.,  1,  p.  GG1    (e)  ;  Kiihner,  I.e.,  2,  p.  415.4. 

3Draeger,  I.e.,  1,  p.  G63.  3;  Sehmalz,  I.e.,  p.  276.138. 

*Ap.,  Met.  9.39:  Ubi  ducis  asinum  istum;  Hand,  I.e.,  3,  p.  165.9. 

B  Meyer-Lubke,   1.   e.,    3,   pp.    531  ff.;    cf.    p.    486. 


Latin  Inscriptions  found  in  Spain.  47 

faint,  if  not  quite  obliterated.  Jnst  as  in  the  case  of  hoc  and 
hunc,  similarity  of  sound  in  the  pronunciation  of  hie,  hue  and 
hinc  would  be  sufficient  to  account  for  their  loss  of  identity, 
and  analogy  to  these  might  have  influence  in  the  case  of  ibi, 
ubi  and  eo.  2592b,  Hinc  sepulta  est;  4386,  Lolia  Porci  f. 
hinc  (s)ita;  4402,  Kubena  .  .  .  hinc  sitast;  I.  H.  C.  80,  Hie 
sursum  rapta;  I.  H.  C.  110,  Hu(c  con)ditae  sunt;  I.  II.  C. 
474,  Adduxerunt  ibi  de  urbe  Avila. 

In  Silver  Latin,  as  well  as  in  the  language  of  a  later  period, 
appears  quite  a  considerable  class  of  adverbs  formed  from  the 
prepositions  ex  and  de  combined  with  an  adjective.  Such  are: 
ex  adverso,  ex  diverso  1  and  the  Ovidian  e  duro,  e  facili,  ex 
aequo.2  Here  would  seem  to  be  indicated  growth  in  the  forma- 
tion of  such  adverbial  phrases.  To  these,  it  appears,  may  be 
added  the  rare  e  recenti,  which,  though  analogous  to  those  just 
mentioned,  is  apparently  found  only  in  the  passage  given  below : 
5181  26  (Aena  quibus  utetur)  lavare  tergere  unguereque  adipe 
e  recenti.  ISTot  only  was  the  list  being  extended  in  this  direction, 
but  new  and  stronger  adverbs  were  being  formed  by  combining 
a  preposition  with  a  simple  adverb,  a  common  expedient  in 
classical  Latin,  where  it  was  limited  to  a  few  forms  like  exinde, 
exadversum,  subinde,  de  super  and  the  like  found  at  all  periods 
of  the  language.  In  Silver  Latinity  there  is  a  noticeable  in- 
crease in  these  compounds.  We  may  cite  circumundique  from 
Statins  and  Gellius,  circumsecus  from  Apuleius,  and  others.3 
We  may  further  add  ex  tunc,4  ex  invicem,5  abistinc,6  exsuper.7 
It  is  evident,  then,  that  exundique  is  due  to  the  increasing  incli- 
nation for  such  compounds  in  late  Latin  and  that  the  preposition 
is  merely  added  for  emphasis,  because  the  simple  adverb  was  felt 
to  have  lost  directive  force.  I.  H.  C.  469,  Hoc  templum  deco- 
rum .  .  .  exundique  amplification  erigitur. 

*Draeger,  I.e.,  1,  p.  633   (c).  2Madvig,  Adv.  Crit.  2,  p.  SO. 

3  Draeger,  1.  c.,  1,  p.  126.  4  Ronsch,  1.  c.,  p.  233. 

5  Souter,    Archiv    10.    412. 

6  Johnston,  The  Querolus,  p.  58.    Johns  Hopkins  University  Diss.,  Toronto, 
1900. 

7  Carnoy,  1.  c.;  p.  266. 


48  Notes  on  the  Syntax  of  the 

The  adverb  usque  in  classical  Latin  was  employed  in  a  variety 
of  connections,  chiefly,  however,  in  strengthening  prepositions 
and  adverbs  of  time  or  their  equivalents.  This  process  of  at- 
taching it  to  various  adverbs  widened  until  in  post-classical  times 
it  might  bo  used  with  practically  any  adverb  or  preposition. 
So  we  find  in  Spanish  inscriptions,  I.  H.  C.  259,  Usque  nunc, 
said  by  Draeger  *  to  be  a  Vitruvian  phrase. 


The  deviations  from  normal  usage  in  Spanish  inscriptions  are 
less  frequent  than  in  the  inscriptions  of  Gaul.  No  such  long 
lists  of  peculiar  constructions,  of  new  and  unfamiliar  words 
reward  the  seeker  here  as  in  Gallic  inscriptions,  nor  is  the  exten- 
sion in  every  field  quite  so  wide  in  the  former  as  in  the  latter. 
This  is  due  in  part  to  the  fact  that  in  Gallic  inscriptions  the 
body  of  material  is  larger,  in  part  it  may  be  due  to  the  thorough- 
ness with  which  Spain  as  a  province  was  Komanized.  Never- 
theless, the  evidence  of  their  popular  character  is  patent  and 
complete,  and  harmonizes  thoroughly  with  the  facts  hitherto 
ascertained  in  regard  to  Folk  Latin.  Further  it  is  largely  on 
the  basis  of  the  Christian  inscriptions  that  such  a  conclusion 
may  be  reached ;  often  one  must  turn  to  these  to  find  examples 
of  that  which  varies  widely  from  classical  usage.  If  it  be  pos- 
sible to  classify  these  inscriptions  even  in  the  most  general  way, 
it  may  be  said  that  in  syntax,  vocabulary  and  style  they  seem 
to  be  allied  with  Silver  Latin.  Deviations  from  the  usage  of 
Cicero  are  numerous,  but  they  usually  take  us  into  the  domain 
of  Silver  Latinity.  Not  often  does  a  usage  occur  in  the  better 
class  of  documents  that  cannot  be  duplicated  in  that  sphere  or 
actually  traced  back  to  it.  Further  than  this,  the  influence  of 
the  Augustan  poets  is  unmistakable,  chiefly  in  the  metrical 
epitaphs,  where  we  find  manifest  imitations  of  them,  not  only 
in  the  extension  characteristic  of  this  group  of  writers,  but 
also  in  sentence  structure  and  word  formation. 

M.  c.s   I,  p.   126;   cf.  Bonnet,  1.   c,  p.  593. 


Latin  Inscriptions  found  in  Spain.  49 

In  the  Christian  inscriptions  again,  the  influence  of  the  Vul- 
gate must,  of  course,  be  taken  into  account ;  its  restraining  effect 
is  no  doubt  to  be  seen  in  the  fixity  of  expression  and  literalness 
that  to  some  extent  prevail.  Often  the  thought  seems  a  mere 
copy  instead  of  a  flexible  product  of  the  writer's  own  mind.  This 
is  sometimes  sufficient  to  account  for  a  strange  use  of  the  In- 
finitive, a  rare  instance  of  the  Subjunctive,  or  some  other  con- 
struction at  variance  with  the  normal  Latin  idiom. 

To  one  seeking  or  expecting  abundant  traces  of  the  beginnings 
of  Spanish  as  distinct  from  the  other  Romance  tongues,  these 
inscriptions  are  disappointing,  for  while  they  throw  light  upon 
the  development  of  the  Romance  languages  in  general,  to  the 
development  of  Spanish  in  particular  they  have  contributed 
practically  nothing  outside  of  vocabulary. 


Vc 


VITA. 

Henry  Martin  was  born  near  Fredericksburg,  Va.,  Nov.  26, 
1878.  His  preliminary  education  was  acquired  in  the  schools 
of  Caroline  County.  His  collegiate  course  was  pursued  at  Rich- 
mond College,  Va.,  where  he  graduated  with  the  degree  of 
Bachelor  of  Arts  in  1899,  and  Master  of  Arts  in  1901.  During 
four  years  he  taught  in  secondary  schools  in  the  State.  In  1903 
he  entered  the  Johns  Hopkins  University  for  graduate  work, 
selecting  as  his  subjects  Latin,  Spanish  and  French.  He  also 
completed  the  course  in  undergraduate  Greek  at  the  University 
and  attended  for  a  year  graduate  lectures  under  Professors  Gil- 
dersleeve  and  Robinson.  He  was  appointed  Fellow  in  Latin  in 
1905,  and  in  1906  was  Latin  Instructor  at  Notre  Dame  Col- 
lege of  Maryland.  Acknowledgments  are  due  to  the  Professors 
in  the  Romance  Department  of  the  University,  to  Prof.  H.  L. 
Wilson,  at  whose  suggestion  this  subject  was  undertaken,  and  to 
Prof.  K.  F.  Smith,  whose  many  acts  of  kindness  are  gratefully 
remembered. 


IT      OP  OA 

3>  ■ 


T  "*K  \l:v 


GENERAL  LIBRARY  -  U.C.  BERKELEY 


B0007502^0 


